"Smartest kids in the..." rigorous question

[MotherOfBoys]

I just finished reading "smartest kids in the world and how they got that way" book that was recommended by someone on here. It was very eye opening for me. If you agree with a rigorous curriculum, I want to know how you have a rigorous homeschooling? Is it in your style of teaching, what books you use, or amount you do?

 

I did search for a tread on this wtm but couldn't find one. Please link if it's here.

[My3girls]

nvm

[Mandy in TN]

There were quite a few rigor threads early last school year. :)

 

However, I would like to caution against thinking of your child as a product that you are building or judging the success of your homeschool journey based upon what college your child attends or if he goes to college at all. If all children had the ability to attend tier 1 colleges, they wouldn't be tier 1 colleges. Children are not a function where you input A and can expect output B. They are whole people already and it just doesn't work that way. Attaching your self-worth to your child's academic ability is not a healthy situation.

 

HTH-

Mandy

[Chrysalis Academy]

Here is a link to another discussion of this book (I've got it on hold at the library, but it's a long wait!  ;) )

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/486898-the-smartest-kids-in-the-worldanyone-read-this/?hl=%2Brigor&do=findComment&comment=5175039

 

 

 

[NicAnn]

When I say we are rigorous, I am referring to the content mostly. We don't do a lot of fluff or busy work. I also don't allow for a lot of daydreaming (during school), complaining, or skipping problems. We focus on mastery as well.

 

I imagine others have their own take on it.

[Mom2TheTeam]

This is a good question.  I've been meaning to post a question asking what people mean when they say "rigorous education."  I'm sure it means different things to different people.  I am striving for that, but to be honest, I admit I'm not totally sure what it looks like.  To me, I'm looking for material that is challenging, but not so hard that it is frustrating.  (Isn't that always the goal. ;))  I don't want my children to say school is easy either.  Sometimes it is okay for something to be relatively easy, especially if the subject comes naturally, but too easy and they aren't learning to their fullest.  What it doesn't mean is trying to push them forward before they are ready or faster than their ability.  I don't care where they fall in comparison to other children.  I care that they are challenged within their own abilities.  For some subjects, that might mean "ahead" of grade level.  For others, it might on grade level or even behind.  As long as they are doing their best and working hard, they are getting a rigorous education, IMHO.  But, again, I'm not totally sure what others mean when they say rigorous.  So, this is just my interpretation.  :D

 

While they are young, about K-2nd or 3rd, I am seeking to be "rigorous" in the skill subjects especially.  Those are the building blocks, the foundation of their education.  So, we work hard on LA and math.  We do content also though.  What we do of content, I make sure they have a good grasp of the topic, but the purpose is to have framework for which to hang the details when they get a little older.  I don't worry about the little details. 

 

By the time they hit 4th grade (we are not here yet), I'm hoping they will have a very solid foundation in skills and continue to build on that in the skill areas, but I plan to add a lot more detail and depth the content.  Again, I want to challenge them, but not overwhelm them. 

 

I'll be interested to hear what others say.  :)

[Lilaclady]

I think for me, rigor is challenging my kids where they are. So what is rigorous for child a will not be rigorous for child b. since we homeschool, I am able to channel my teaching and resources to what a child needs. I look for high quality books that will challenge and interest them. I also strive to provide a wholesome environment so it is not just in academics, it is also in character training, behavior, attitude, executive fusion skills, sportsmanship etc

[Crimson Wife]

Are you familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy? I try to find materials that place more emphasis on the higher-level skills (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) and not so much on the lower-level skills (recall, comprehension). We do a lot of Socratic discussion and pushing the child to really think about the material rather than just rote memorization, even in the grammar stage.

[8filltheheart]

I think for me, rigor is challenging my kids where they are. So what is rigorous for child a will not be rigorous for child b. since we homeschool, I am able to channel my teaching and resources to what a child needs.

I agree. I have never taught a single grade level or a single subject the same way twice.

 

I agree with CW as well. My kids do not do worksheet type assignments and spend their time doing activities that require higher order thinking skills.

[Luckymama]

Are you familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy? I try to find materials that place more emphasis on the higher-level skills (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) and not so much on the lower-level skills (recall, comprehension). We do a lot of Socratic discussion and pushing the child to really think about the material rather than just rote memorization, even in the grammar stage.

This, exactly.

[MotherOfBoys]

I've never heard of blooms taxonomy. I guess I better Google it. All we do is wrkshts. I agree it depends on the child for what's challenging. Thank you.

[Joyofsixreboot]

By rigorous I mean that I push each of them to do as much as they individually can. My kids are very different but I expect each of them to stretch.

[FairClaire]

This is a topic I have been thinking a lot about as well.  I am sure my interpretation of "rigorous" will evolve with time.  Right now it means that I want each child to be challenged and have a strong work ethic.  I do not ever push to the point of frustration, but my kids do not have any work they consider "easy."  We do spend more time doing school than most other families with children the same age as mine.  As my children continue to grow, I want them to become independent learners who set high goals and know how to work hard to achieve them.

 

I haven't heard of the book you mentioned, but now I'm curious so I'll have to read it!

[abba12]

Please note this is my 'theory' based on what I experienced and observed as a homeschooled kid, not my 'practice' with my own children, yet, due to their ages.

 

To me, rigorous means bypassing the busywork, not doing excessive review and not being afraid to tackle content that is 'above' the recommended level if it suits the child. Not being afraid to skip the rest of a chapter of math if the child understands the concept. Among the homeschooled children I grew up with (in australia where religious reasons to homeschool were not as high as bullying/academic), it was normal to be a grade or two ahead in math, not because we were all bright, but at the time, most families were happy to jump around in the curriculum and move on at the child's pace without finishing every page and problem, and on top of that most families placed a high imprtance and time commitment on math. There was very little issue with how long a book 'should' take.

 

To me, it also means thought provoking and wholly engaging. We hope to focus a lot on the thinking skills, not just through logic, though that is part of it, but through philosphy/psychology/theology. We want to avoid memorization (except where it is of value to us, such as math facts and bible/poetry)  but rather really focus on how to learn. When it comes to history and science I want my children's knowledge to come from understanding, and mental maps with connections, rather than rote facts and definitions.

 

To me, it also means giving a lot of focus to the skill subjects, while in the concept subjects, concrete basic understandings and exceptional self-study/research skills are the focus, as I cannot possibly teach them everything there is to know about science and history in the time they are with me. I can offer only a snapshot, so, to me, a solid grasp of the basics and a knowledge of what is out there is more important than knowing more advanced details. Society gives a lot of focus to chemistry, a select strand of biology, and basic physics these days, but there is SO MUCH more out there.

 

And finally, it also means for a child who is not so academically minded, as my own sister was, expecting more, and setting the bar high, not so high as to make them resent it, but high enough to push them. If a child is behind, that's ok, and some children just don't have book smarts, among the combined 12 children in mine and my husbands family, 3 of them struggled greatly with books and never truly excelled, but they were pushed, our parents looked for their strengths and weaknesses and didn't let them get away with giving up or not giving a full effort. There is a thread at the moment where people are debating whether or not a child should be expected to give 100% effort all of the time, and for those families who believe 100% effort is unreasonable that is fine for them based off their goals and views, I don't want to put anyone off side, but for my family, I think, whether your 3rd grader is doing 1st grade work or 5th grade work, putting in a full effort and reaching your full potential, whatever that is, is the most important thing, and vital to our version of a rigorous education.

 

Of course, this is based off my husband and I being the students, and eldest children (thus involved with teaching our younger siblings). I guess I can only spout theory for another 5 or 6 years yet.

 

[Tress]

Can you share a little bit about how Socratic discussion works with a small number of people, possibly only you and one or two students? I am familiar with the Socratic circle, but not sure how to make this work on a smaller scale and with young, grammar stage kids.

 

Yes, please :bigear: .

 

[8filltheheart]

Can you share a little bit about how Socratic discussion works with a small number of people, possibly only you and one or two students? I am familiar with the Socratic circle, but not sure how to make this work on a smaller scale and with young, grammar stage kids.

The way I do it is to simply always ask open-ended questions(the kind that cannot be answered with yes or no, but actually require them to articulate their reasons) and then take their responses and ask another leading open-ended question that takes their thoughts in the direction I want them to go.

[Luckymama]

Can you share a little bit about how Socratic discussion works with a small number of people, possibly only you and one or two students? I am familiar with the Socratic circle, but not sure how to make this work on a smaller scale and with young, grammar stage kids.

Not CW but...

 

Remember we began homeschooling when dd was ten, in fifth grade. She has always been the only one at home.

 

Having just the one, the Socratic discussion is different than it would be with s larger group. I basically just ask leading questions and watch her come to her own conclusions without me stating "this is the way." I am a participant in the discussion, not a lecturer.

 

We started with history, I guess. I didn't plan on Socratic discussion---it just felt natural. Dd craved good discussion in her former school (which she almost never got) so I was trying to fill that need. I always read her history before she does. We watch documentaries together. I will ask things like "why do you think they did xyz?" or "if you had to make that decision, what would you do?" And then we'll be off discussing and rabbit-trailing for half an hour.

 

I'm not afraid of silence. Sometimes dd thinks for a long time, especially when considering a complex moral question. I'll just sit there, sipping my coffee, while she gathers her thoughts :)

 

Wish I could be more coherent, but it's still early lol

[kwg]

I have the most difficult time with discussions with my ds.  He almost resents them and always has.  When he was six he would ask "if you want to know, you could just read it" in the most curious tone.  Now he considers it a trust issue.  "You dont trust me to understand it! You dont trust that I read it!"  :lol: That is what I got when we tried Jacob's Ladder or the one by classical somthing- which is supposed to help with socratic teaching.  Usually I say "just answer the question" and he does so sullenly.  But I am jealous of people who can get their children to discuss.  I have no idea what I am doing wrong.  

 

Sometimes he will pipe up with comparisons or insight on his own and that can lead to thoughtful discussion but if I try to initiate it-  :glare:

[Candid]

In this thread, I spend some time defining and defending how you can choose a rigorous program in lit and history. Other subjects like science and math would have different standards. Any way, here's the thread:

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/486336-what-is-the-most-rigorous-education/?do=findComment&comment=5168358

 

I'm now mulling over a broader, shorter standard. To be rigorous is driven by content, pace, and expectations. However some care in defining terms is needed, because if you like you, can use that last variable to label anything rigorous, so let me see if I can show why that is:

 

I can set content and pace so that a child is challenged and say that this is a rigorous program for this one particular child. Heck I could use my dog as the expectation of rigorous. My kids are doing tons better than her in reading and math, less so in happy obedience. 

 

 

OR I can set an average child of some sort (age, skill set, etc) and set the expectations of content and pace based on so that average child would be challenged. In this second case, I can then say I have a rigorous program for this sort of child. The trick here is to define that average child. 

[Mandy in TN]

In the other thread mentioned, it wasn't about giving 100% effort. It was about making 100% on assignments. If an 8yo child is doing the sort of written assignments where a parent can come through and mark the answers wrong and quickly give a percentage score and if the 8yo child is working on material she is learning rather than material she already knows, then I wouldn't expect her the receive 100% on every assignment. The percentage correct isn't a reflection of effort, and, if the child is always scoring 100%, then she may not working at a level where she is interacting with new material.

 

HTH-

Mandy

[briansmama]

Please note this is my 'theory' based on what I experienced and observed as a homeschooled kid, not my 'practice' with my own children, yet, due to their ages.

 

To me, rigorous means bypassing the busywork, not doing excessive review and not being afraid to tackle content that is 'above' the recommended level if it suits the child. Not being afraid to skip the rest of a chapter of math if the child understands the concept. Among the homeschooled children I grew up with (in australia where religious reasons to homeschool were not as high as bullying/academic), it was normal to be a grade or two ahead in math, not because we were all bright, but at the time, most families were happy to jump around in the curriculum and move on at the child's pace without finishing every page and problem, and on top of that most families placed a high imprtance and time commitment on math. There was very little issue with how long a book 'should' take.

 

To me, it also means thought provoking and wholly engaging. We hope to focus a lot on the thinking skills, not just through logic, though that is part of it, but through philosphy/psychology/theology. We want to avoid memorization (except where it is of value to us, such as math facts and bible/poetry) but rather really focus on how to learn. When it comes to history and science I want my children's knowledge to come from understanding, and mental maps with connections, rather than rote facts and definitions.

 

To me, it also means giving a lot of focus to the skill subjects, while in the concept subjects, concrete basic understandings and exceptional self-study/research skills are the focus, as I cannot possibly teach them everything there is to know about science and history in the time they are with me. I can offer only a snapshot, so, to me, a solid grasp of the basics and a knowledge of what is out there is more important than knowing more advanced details. Society gives a lot of focus to chemistry, a select strand of biology, and basic physics these days, but there is SO MUCH more out there.

 

And finally, it also means for a child who is not so academically minded, as my own sister was, expecting more, and setting the bar high, not so high as to make them resent it, but high enough to push them. If a child is behind, that's ok, and some children just don't have book smarts, among the combined 12 children in mine and my husbands family, 3 of them struggled greatly with books and never truly excelled, but they were pushed, our parents looked for their strengths and weaknesses and didn't let them get away with giving up or not giving a full effort. There is a thread at the moment where people are debating whether or not a child should be expected to give 100% effort all of the time, and for those families who believe 100% effort is unreasonable that is fine for them based off their goals and views, I don't want to put anyone off side, but for my family, I think, whether your 3rd grader is doing 1st grade work or 5th grade work, putting in a full effort and reaching your full potential, whatever that is, is the most important thing, and vital to our version of a rigorous education.

 

Of course, this is based off my husband and I being the students, and eldest children (thus involved with teaching our younger siblings). I guess I can only spout theory for another 5 or 6 years yet.

Yes to all of the above!!! Great post.

[Mandy in TN]

I obviously have a problem associating the term rigorous education with overbearing tiger parents who push their child to the breaking point and have an unhealthy co-dependent interest in making sure that their child attends a top university to the point of believing that if their child, who is only valued as an end-product, doesn’t do XYZ with his life then not only has their child failed but they have also failed as parents. When someone begins asking about a rigorous education, my kneejerk reaction is to caution against the sort of parenting that the phrase brings to my mind. I acknowledge that this association is my problem. Whew, I feel better now that is out in the open! :p

 

I want to know how you have a rigorous homeschooling? Is it in your style of teaching, what books you use, or amount you do?

 

I do enjoy using memory work as a tool, but I agree with Andrew Campbell’s view of memory work expressed in his book Living Memory.  

 

One of the unfortunate outgrowths of the interest in Dorothy Sayers’ “The Lost Tools of Learninâ€â€™ is that too often the Trivium becomes mere trivia. “Poll-parrots†can rattle off dozens of facts, few of which they can apply in context. …I do not recommend that you require students to memorize science facts or history dates before they have encountered them in the natural course of their studies. I urge you to arrange your memory work in a way that fits into your curriculum.

 

I would also argue that memorizing selections of poetry or literature is not only beneficial in that it can be used as a stepping stone to deeper meaning but also in ways that may/ or may not be considered academic like working on enunciation, inflection, and eye-contact.

 

However, I agree with Crimson Wife regarding Bloom’s Taxonomy. Spending a lot of time on programs that just use the lower levels may give you a long day and have your child achieve poll-parrot status, but it may not be challenging in a way that makes a child really think.  So, the amount of time spent does not necessarily correlate with the challenge presented.Obviously, the level of the books used presents a level of challenge in reading level alone, but a student with adequate phonics skills may be able to decode and recall words on a page and have no understanding of what he just read. So, there is a balancing act of finding materials that are at a level of challenge where the student can understand the material. Of course, after a student has put in sufficient time to read and understand material at an appropriate level of challenge, then what it comes down to is what happens next. This brings you right back to Bloom’s Taxonomy and allowing a child to interact with material at more complex cognitive levels. This is definitely about a style of teaching.

 

However, it is very important to pause for a minute and acknowledge that, although all children are different, the vast majority of us are indeed of average intelligence. No amount of time, challenging curriculum, or instruction using higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy is going to magically change a student of average intelligence into a genius. Having average intelligence is not bad and having a higher IQ does not necessarily correlate to higher achievement. Sure, having intelligence and, as Einstein stated- imagination, can help, but it isn’t enough to have a big, creative brain. Ultimately, people achieve through diligence, determination, and other positive habits that a challenging homeschool environment can help instill in a student.  

 

HTH-

Mandy

 

[Pen]

I think the word rigourous has some negative connotations/denotations.   Here is my computer's built in Oxford definition, with some of where I think the negatives are bolded by me:

 

rigorous |ˈrigÉ™rÉ™s|adjectiveextremely thorough, exhaustive, or accurate : the rigorous testing of consumer products.• (of a rule, system, etc.) strictly applied or adhered to : rigorous controls on mergers.• (of a person) adhering strictly or inflexibly to a belief, opinion, or way of doing something : a rigorous teetotaler.• (of an activity) physically demanding : my exercise regime is a little more rigorous than most.• (of the weather or climate) harsh : the rigorous climate in the regions of perpetual snow high in the Himalayas.

 

 

 

Personally I am interested in understanding more of the Finland model where they seem to get an excellent result, whether the person is going on to a professional or trade or whatever sort of career.

 

I think I like the sense of striving for excellence as that fits my particular child (as many have posted above), keeping in mind his strengths and weaknesses.  In theory before dealing with a real person in a real situation, I would have thought that a magnet Japanese language immersion school (known for being rigorous") would have been something I would have wanted a child to do.  And then I had my real child before me, and that just would not have been a good fit at all.

 

At the age of your (OP's) children, I think I would be working on developing the basic skills for reading and numeracy as soon as the children were ready--certainly I'd be reading to them.  I'd also be working on art, nature appreciation, physical body activities, social activities, lifeskill activities.   I might want to expose them to music and a foreign language if I could do that.

 

To be honest, unless it seemed like an excellent fit for your family, Saxon would not be my first choice for math.

[RootAnn]

. . . And I just had a dream yesterday about my neighbor-the-school-board-member being in my house, watching me teach, and telling me my school wasn't rigorous enough.

 

!!

 

:leaving:

[Pen]

Are you at some level wondering if what you are doing is "rigorous"?

 

 

5 yr old son: Mm 1, Saxon Math 1, CtGE 1, SW A, WWE with SotW1 till Jan 1st

3 yr old son: Saxon Math K, Saxon Phonics K orally

 

I'm not sure what CtGE or SW A are, but assuming MM1 is math mammoth, I'd say having your 3 year old in K level work and your 5 year old doing a heavy first grade load would meet my ideas of that!

[Mrs Twain]

Just to get this off my chest, some things I disagree with:

 

Usually when the subject of rigor in academics comes up, some will say that every child is different so that there is really no such thing as rigor.  Since they don't think they can compare one child with another, the concept of rigor is irrelevant.  All that makes sense is to challenge each child.  I disagree.

 

Some say that providing a child with a rigorous education means that the parent is treating him as a product and not as a person.  This may be true for some parents, but it is not universally true.  It is actually possible for a child to receive a rigorous education and have thriving, healthy relationships with his parents.

 

In homeschooling circles, many people hold to a belief that there is a rigid dichotomy between rigor in academics and developing a child's character.  They assume that parents who are concerned about rigor do not care about the child's character development.  Furthermore, they imply that it is impossible teach character development and rigorous academics at the same time.  I disagree.  In reality, rigor in academics promotes the development of positive character qualities, including perseverance, faithfulness, and respect for authority.  It gives a child the opportunity to work hard at a difficult task, and then to hear, "Well done!"

 

I also disagree with the assertion that the amount of intelligence a child is born with determines where he will end up in life rather than how rigorous the curriculum is.  This is the western view of intelligence.  According to the evidence, the Asian view of intelligence is far closer to the truth.  Asians believe that intelligence is due to hard work.  The harder a student works, the smarter he will be.  If the student did not do well on his math test, it is not because he is bad at math but because he did not put in enough time studying.  After reading the evidence on this subject, my dh and I have adopted the Asian outlook and are praising our kids not because they are smart but because they work hard.

 

In order to incorporate rigor in my curriculum, I consider both skills and content.  I use the Core Knowledge K-8 Sequence as my minimum standard for each subject.  Whenever time and a child's ability allows, we attempt to go above the standards.  Therefore, rigor is about teaching my children all that they are expected to know for their ages/grades (i.e. standards) as well as surpassing that as possible.  It involves not only challenging the child but also providing a complete curriculum.  By "complete" I mean what the world will expect them to know plus the extras of what dh and I consider to be an excellent education.

 

I do not view high aspirations negatively.  In fact, just yesterday I was researching articles on "How to Get into an Ivy League School."  After discussing the subject with my dh, he suggested I also research about how to get into the military academies, especially because a few people have suggested this route as a possibility for one of our children.  We do not consider our kids as products as some would suggest just because we are interested in sending them to good schools.  We aim to give them the very best education we can so that they will have the greatest number of opportunities.  Who knows what they will do in the future or where they will be accepted to college, but I do not want to purposefully limit them because of some false premise that rigor in academics is ungodly and unsuitable for Christians, or for whatever the prevailing notions are among homeschoolers.

 

One final thought based on earlier comments--

Critical thinking and analysis skills are absolutely dependent on having core, background knowledge.  Do not skip the learning of facts at younger ages in order get to the critical thinking "sooner." 

 

 

[maize]

I think a rigorous education is one in which a child is progressing on track to reach whatever goals parents and child deem most appropriate. Rigor in this context does not have to be academic, perhaps the child is on track to become a professional dancer.

[8filltheheart]

Just to get this off my chest, some things I disagree with:

 

Usually when the subject of rigor in academics comes up, some will say that every child is different so that there is really no such thing as rigor.  Since they don't think they can compare one child with another, the concept of rigor is irrelevant.  All that makes sense is to challenge each child.  I disagree.

 

Some say that providing a child with a rigorous education means that the parent is treating him as a product and not as a person.  This may be true for some parents, but it is not universally true.  It is actually possible for a child to receive a rigorous education and have thriving, healthy relationships with his parents.

 

In homeschooling circles, many people hold to a belief that there is a rigid dichotomy between rigor in academics and developing a child's character.  They assume that parents who are concerned about rigor do not care about the child's character development.  Furthermore, they imply that it is impossible teach character development and rigorous academics at the same time.  I disagree.  In reality, rigor in academics promotes the development of positive character qualities, including perseverance, faithfulness, and respect for authority.  It gives a child the opportunity to work hard at a difficult task, and then to hear, "Well done!"

 

I also disagree with the assertion that the amount of intelligence a child is born with determines where he will end up in life rather than how rigorous the curriculum is.  This is the western view of intelligence.  According to the evidence, the Asian view of intelligence is far closer to the truth.  Asians believe that intelligence is due to hard work.  The harder a student works, the smarter he will be.  If the student did not do well on his math test, it is not because he is bad at math but because he did not put in enough time studying.  After reading the evidence on this subject, my dh and I have adopted the Asian outlook and are praising our kids not because they are smart but because they work hard.

 

In order to incorporate rigor in my curriculum, I consider both skills and content.  I use the Core Knowledge K-8 Sequence as my minimum standard for each subject.  Whenever time and a child's ability allows, we attempt to go above the standards.  Therefore, rigor is about teaching my children all that they are expected to know for their ages/grades (i.e. standards) as well as surpassing that as possible.  It involves not only challenging the child but also providing a complete curriculum.  By "complete" I mean what the world will expect them to know plus the extras of what dh and I consider to be an excellent education.

 

I do not view high aspirations negatively.  In fact, just yesterday I was researching articles on "How to Get into an Ivy League School."  After discussing the subject with my dh, he suggested I also research about how to get into the military academies, especially because a few people have suggested this route as a possibility for one of our children.  We do not consider our kids as products as some would suggest just because we are interested in sending them to good schools.  We aim to give them the very best education we can so that they will have the greatest number of opportunities.  Who knows what they will do in the future or where they will be accepted to college, but I do not want to purposefully limit them because of some false premise that rigor in academics is ungodly and unsuitable for Christians, or for whatever the prevailing notions are among homeschoolers.

 

One final thought based on earlier comments--

Critical thinking and analysis skills are absolutely dependent on having core, background knowledge.  Do not skip the learning of facts at younger ages in order get to the critical thinking "sooner." 

 

I would say my kids have a very solid academic base and all of them are set to succeed.   But, I also know that I cannot make my children master something they are incapable of achieving.   Innate ability does exist.   Nothing I could have done with our oldest dd would have enabled her to do the same level of math that her younger brother does.  He literally sees the world in patterns, sequences, and pictures.   He actually passed her in math when he was in 8th grade and she was in 10th.(and she wasn't behind.  She took alg in 8th, geo in 9th, and alg 2 in 10th) Conversely, he is dyslexic.   I cannot make him a faster reader than he is.   He has managed to overcome most of his more serious issues, but reading speed is not one of them.   And none of my kids have had the propensity for languages that our 9th grader has.   She absorbs them.  Our dyslexic, otoh, has a lot of auditory issues associated with his dyslexia (for example he said Arizonya for yrs and could not hear that he was adding a y in the pronunciation).    French was a struggle.   Latin, otoh, he thrived in b/c it is logical, ordered, and doesn't require speech.  ;)

 

Now, our oldest, otoh, I am convinced that if he had had the opportunity to do math via AoPS vs. Foersters that he would have thrived in the approach as much as his younger brother has.   Not completing AoPS didn't harm him educationally or career-wise since he is doing exactly what he wanted to do--chemical engineering--but it would have exposed him much more complex thinking that he was capable of doing and he would have enjoyed the challenge.   So, yes, what we use can impact their cognitive processes.   But, again, not all students are capable of that level, no matter how hard they work at it.    We have to be aware of the difference.   AoPS would be a disasterous approach for many students, our oldest dd for sure.  It would have left her feeling defeated.

 

FWIW, there is no getting to critical thinking "sooner" by skipping facts at younger ages.  Critical thinking is not something that is age based.    It is how the mind processes,  expresses, and synthesizes information.  Children of all ages are capable of engaging in critical thinking.

[SorrelZG]

I believe rigor sometimes does involve doing all the problems and not riding the very crest of challenge in all areas at all times. I expect what is foundational to be over learned. That requires going over it again and again, beyond the point of it no longer being challenging. That doesn't require much time each day but it is essential here.

[Crimson Wife]

One final thought based on earlier comments--

Critical thinking and analysis skills are absolutely dependent on having core, background knowledge.  Do not skip the learning of facts at younger ages in order get to the critical thinking "sooner."

I agree with this sentiment, and don't want to give the impression that we ONLY spend time on the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. My DS, who is slogging his way through learning multi-digit multiplication and long division at the moment, could attest to that. But I do try to go beyond just learning the facts and background knowledge (which is why he is simultaneously doing a few pages per day out of Beast Academy).