Question about philosophy on teaching history

[UnlikelyHomeschoolingMama]

I have a 2nd grader and a kinder.  We are just starting on MFW Adventures (we are in week 5) and absolutely love it!!  The kids are soaking up the books, the book basket, etc.  They love the subject matter as well.  I'm really looking forward to this year.  

 

Looking beyond this year though I have a question about teaching history.  I love the idea of chronological history education and would love to stick with MFW.  However, I keep hearing about how you don't get as much US History that way.  I am REALLY drawn to Sonlight for the 2 years of world history (Core B and then Core C) and then the two years of US History following that.  My kids would be the perfect age to start at Core B next year.   However, it isn't four years of chronological history.  

 

Can somebody give me their thoughts on this?  I know many people will be chronological history fans on this board, but I would love to hear different sides and reasoning.  Also...Sonlight is so tempting!!!    :drool5:

 

 

[Aiden]

We used Sonlight for preschool and preK, but decided to do something else for K and up. My understanding of chronological history studies is that it will include U.S. history, but it will put it in perspective as to how it relates to the world--after all, the U.S. becomes a major actor in world history, so a study of world history must involve a study of U.S. history to some degree, and a study of U.S. history that glosses over the rest of the world will leave out important parts of U.S. history.

 

It also is possible to study a chronological history that focuses on U.S. history once the U.S. comes on the scene, so to speak. We're planning to use Tapestry of Grace, and from what I've seen of the relevant year-plans (I've only looked at Ancient History in depth so far), they do focus on U.S. history while also attempting to cover what's happening in the rest of the world. I'm not totally sure that it would be possible to cover the entire world in depth, and if you have to choose something on which to focus, it makes sense to choose your home country. TOG also isn't strictly chronological, but is as close to it as the author felt made sense without excessive jumping around.

[lulalu]

Charlotte Mason taught British history along with chronological history. As a separate history. British history is much longer than American history. But if you read a few biographies, and focused on an area of American history as an additional subject you would be able to in depth learn American history, people and government. It would then be easy to mentally place American history along with the big picture once you reach that place chronologically.

[Heidi]

My philosophy is that kids in early elementary are not going to get much out of a chronological history anyway, and that a focus on interesting stories and people would be a better use of time and money.  A chronological study would better serve 5-8th graders and then again in high school.  I think either of your options would be fine and that it doesn't really matter for young kids, as long as the books you are reading are interesting and capture their attention.

[Guest]

My philosophy is don't be looking at doing something new next year  (and the year after that) when you're only five weeks into something you ABSOLUTELY LOVE ;-)

 

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I don't think chronological history is so important in lower elementary, but it also is a nice way to organize things.  I only started a really organized chronological history in grade 3, and that was still a more story than anything. I have in the past few years taught British history alongside a somewhat western oriented chronological world history, with the two often being around the same period in time. in the coming year (gr 5) we are doing the early modern period the first half of the year and Canadian history the second half, and it will cover a lot of the same period.  For next year we'll do the modern period, world history, Canadian, and British.  That will set us up for going into a more detailed middle school approach.

 

Another option is to do something like a 3 year history cycle, and then one year of American history.

 

But for your kids ages, my inclination would be to read a lot of history stories rather than a true chronological approach.

[Ellie]

I love history. I love American history, because American. :patriot: I wanted my dc to enjoy history--any history, any era, all history. We had no real plan when they were little, because history doesn't always show up chronologically. We just did...history...because I believe that all those history bits fill in the little spaces in more formal, chronological history when that happens.

[ScoutTN]

Do what you and your dc love! Don't stress too much about history. Content subjects are gravy in elementary years.

Find materials that work for you and go with it. I love chronological history, but it is not something I'd fret over, re-arrange a working plan for, esp not before middle school.

[Loowit]

I like chronological history, but I am not sure how important it is for younger years.  I have done MFW K, 1st, and the 5-year cycle, plus DD did AHL (9th grade).  My kids and I have really enjoyed it quite a bit.  I didn't really feel like it was too light on US History, but then I was looking for something that would be more of a global focus and bring in history other than western civilizations.  I also add in my own things seasonally if I feel like it, like something fun at Thanksgiving or Independence day.  We are starting the 5 year cycle over this fall, so the boys will be doing ECC which will be the 1st time for my youngest and 2nd time for my middle.  I think it will be nice to take a year to do geography before getting back into the history cycle again.

 

I don't know how much my children retained from doing history chronologically, but I really enjoyed it myself and I feel like my kids have a decent grasp for their age of the history of the US.  I think having fun with it at the younger ages is what is most important, IMO.

[MerryAtHope]

Sonlight worked really well for us. We enjoyed cores B, C, D, and E. B and C are chronological world history, just not 4 years. (We actually did B and C over 3 years total, so we did stretch some).  We did F but that one has an unusual approach--some love it, some don't. We enjoyed the books but not the overall approach of this one. When we went to G & H, I did a 4-year history for my youngest, and a 3-year history for my oldest. I used books from Sonlight cores G, H, 200 and 300 for those rotations (kind of our own eclectic mix). Both also did a year of US history for high school (SL 100), a semester of government with some of the 400 books, and a semester social studies elective along with some British Lit/630.

 

There are all kinds of ways of doing things. I loved the 4 year WH my youngest and I did together, and wish I had gone straight to that instead of doing Core F, after we finished US history with Sonlight E. I could have woven in the F books with world history too. We almost always enjoy or at least appreciate the books Sonlight picks for readers and read-alouds. Many of the history books have worked, while other times I subbed in different books (which is part of why we went eclectic for that 2nd history rotation). 

 

Some people stretch out B and C for a 4-year rotation, then do D & E, then another 4 year rotation, and so on. There are lots of ways to make it work if you want to hold closer to a 4 year rotation.