Thoughts on the Robinson Curriculum?

[Renai]

It has been so long since my dc were young, but I just remembered Starfall, a very effective -- and fun -- online phonics based reading program. Used to be free, now it is $35 per year per family. Worth checking out, imo, despite the cost.

 

There is still plenty free on that site.

[Alessandra]

There is still plenty free on that site.

Thx, good to know, and I am glad to hear it. Hope op finds it useful.

[ezrabean2005]

We've owned this in the past (it was given to us).  Truly, there is so much more out there.  It was created for a time that resources were not as easy to access.  I would suggest finding a good math curriculum that is feasible for five kids that eventually becomes independent, create a writing expectation that builds up slowly to eventually be one page / essay a day, and create a booklist that you are happy with.  With those tools, the independence of the Robinson Curriculum is created with resources that you won't wince at.

 

The Rainbow Curriculum that Hunter posted gives a really great place to jump off from as you try to "level" books and skills.  Good luck!

[Peaceful Isle]

Isn't Robinson curriculum made by a man who lost his wife in an untimely death? The kids practically homeschool themselves, the olders helping the youngers, and they don't do math , except flashcards, until saxon 5/4.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken. :/ 

[Slache]

Isn't Robinson curriculum made by a man who lost his wife in an untimely death? The kids practically homeschool themselves, the olders helping the youngers, and they don't do math , except flashcards, until saxon 5/4.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken. :/

Yes. I think there's more math than that, but yes.

[Hunter]

Isn't Robinson curriculum made by a man who lost his wife in an untimely death? The kids practically homeschool themselves, the olders helping the youngers, and they don't do math , except flashcards, until saxon 5/4.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken. :/ 

 

The Robinson children started Saxon 54 really young, though, and worked through the books for 2 hours a day, and ended out finishing calculus at very young ages.

[momma2three]

Honestly, whenever I hear about the Robinson Curriculum, I think "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."  Parents need do nothing, just hand a giant pile of 75+ year old books to their child, who will sit and read them for the next 12 years and then learn everything they need to know in life?  Easy peasy lemon squeezy!  Except that when that complete lack of effort on the part of the parent is the major selling point, maybe it's worth stepping back for a minute and considering whether curricula (and, frankly, homeschooling) should be selected primarily because the parent doesn't want to really have to do anything?

 

FWIW, the little I know about the actual Robinson family, I gather that it was a large group of kids, living in an isolated environment, with access to lots of books, lots of physical exercise, no TV or computers, and a father who drilled them at dinner.  And I can definitely see how, in such a situation, said kids grow up to be intelligent, educated, interesting people, a la the Mitfords, Kennedys, Brontes or other famous members of large families with high intellectual expectations, who didn't have much to do as kids but read books and use their imagination for creative play.  I do not think that this is the situation for most families nowadays... and I think that if this IS what your family is like, you could make your own book list out of MUCH MUCH MUCH better books.

[Michael12]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but "a giant pile of 75+ year old books" seems to be used derogatorily. Surely not all of those old books are bad, are they? One part of the RC philosophy is that it's better to read historical accounts by the people who were there than to read watered-down summaries with modern-day biases imposed on events and thinking of the past. The fact that a huge portion of history took place more than 75 years ago shouldn't be a disqualifier, right? Is there something especially bad about reading Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington? Or George Washington's diaries? Or Abraham Lincoln's speeches? There's a whole lot more that could be mentioned. And again, the science and math texts aren't 75+ years old.

 

It seems that some people think the whole curriculum hinges on some of the lower level fiction that is included (because we're not addressing the Dickens and Shakespeare selections, right? And Little Women and Heidi are still OK, yes?). I'm not saying that those lower level selections are the greatest thing in the world, or that there aren't a whole lot of wonderful books that could be read instead. But there's a whole lot more included that seems to be getting painted with the same broad brush. Again, guilt by association.

 

And I daresay that not every human being in the history of the world who was deprived of books newer than 75 years old ended up as a racist serial killer. There is no correlation between children who learned on McGuffey Readers and all the evil in the world since. And bad kids like the Columbine killers probably encountered Charlotte's Web and the like at some point.

 

I also think learning "everything they need to know in life" by reading those books is not a claim that has been made by the RC. It seems to be a straw man argument. I certainly don't believe that I learned everything I needed to know in life during my 12+ years with the public school curriculum. Why would we assume that nothing else goes on outside of this curriculum? Maybe it's not the same for every family or even every child. Has no one else ever read something that wasn't on the "assigned" list?

[Spy Car]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but "a giant pile of 75+ year old books" seems to be used derogatorily. Surely not all of those old books are bad, are they? One part of the RC philosophy is that it's better to read historical accounts by the people who were there than to read watered-down summaries with modern-day biases imposed on events and thinking of the past. The fact that a huge portion of history took place more than 75 years ago shouldn't be a disqualifier, right? Is there something especially bad about reading Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington? Or George Washington's diaries? Or Abraham Lincoln's speeches? There's a whole lot more that could be mentioned. And again, the science and math texts aren't 75+ years old.

 

It seems that some people think the whole curriculum hinges on some of the lower level fiction that is included (because we're not addressing the Dickens and Shakespeare selections, right? And Little Women and Heidi are still OK, yes?). I'm not saying that those lower level selections are the greatest thing in the world, or that there aren't a whole lot of wonderful books that could be read instead. But there's a whole lot more included that seems to be getting painted with the same broad brush. Again, guilt by association.

 

And I daresay that not every human being in the history of the world who was deprived of books newer than 75 years old ended up as a racist serial killer. There is no correlation between children who learned on McGuffey Readers and all the evil in the world since. And bad kids like the Columbine killers probably encountered Charlotte's Web and the like at some point.

 

I also think learning "everything they need to know in life" by reading those books is not a claim that has been made by the RC. It seems to be a straw man argument. I certainly don't believe that I learned everything I needed to know in life during my 12+ years with the public school curriculum. Why would we assume that nothing else goes on outside of this curriculum? Maybe it's not the same for every family or even every child. Has no one else ever read something that wasn't on the "assigned" list?

 

What you're missing Michael is that the Robinson Curriculum offers up a false promise that homeschooling parents can be virtually uninvolved in the education of their children, beyond loading their children's desks with a stack of books and telling them to teach themselves. It is unrealistic, and in practice leads to educational neglect. In his "program" children get about 5 minutes of parent time a day. He sells neglect as a "virtue." 

 

I'm not buying it.

 

Bill

[momma2three]

First of all, Charlotte's Web isn't on the list.  It's not in the public domain.

 

Secondly, the vast majority of books on the list are the super schlocky and awful children's books.  The Bobbsey Twins are lots of fun to read in your spare time, but including them as not insubstantial part of your literature-based curriculum makes them fair game to bring up when criticizing the curriculum.

 

Thirdly, yes, a lot of history happened prior to 75 years ago.  On the other hand, a lot also happened in the past 75 years, and I think it's pretty important for kids to graduate with a modern education.  

 

And finally, it's really just an awful list.  There are some books on it that should be read by everyone.  There are many, many, many, many more books on it that have fallen out of popularity not because of some evil PC publishers conspiracy, but just because they're not good books.

 

And to charge people $200 for a list of not-good books, when any library has a shelf of books with titles like "100 books to read before you die" or "Classics of literature that everyone should read" or "Classics that children love" or something like that, is absurd.

[Farrar]

Charlotte's Web might be... I understand there's a very short list of books that are suggested extra readings on the RC.

 

I'm all for reading many fine old books. Our current car audiobook is Treasure Island and our current read aloud is Around the World in 80 Days (well, and The Martian, which dh is reading to the boys... so that's the opposite of old).

 

I'm also strongly in favor of kids reading real accounts and sources for history, especially in high school, though starting to do it before that. That should absolutely include many sources that reflect the racism of the time. However, it has to be in context of discussion and thinking. Otherwise, you're just hearing those thoughts. And if you're using Robinson, then a kid is just reading the books in a vacuum, being told this is the "great works." Some of the messages about race are good, but most are pretty bad. And much of it is reading that happens at a younger age and isn't presented as "learn about racism in history reading" but rather as just good fiction reading.

 

These conversations always take on the weirdest air, as if those of us arguing against some of these older books are against old books in general and against talking about racism or presenting the past to our kids. But nothing could be further from the truth. It's a straw man argument.

[Michael12]

My point about Charlotte's Web was that, while not on the RC book list, it is a more recent book (1952) that is included in many school (and homeschool) curricula. Lots of kids read it, and some turn out bad. Back in the day, lots of people read McGuffey (or - gasp - even G. A. Henty!) and turned out fine.

 

Secondly, I'm not missing the lack of parental involvement (or TV or sugar). I'm just not addressing that when I'm talking about the book list.

 

If I remember correctly, Robinson does acknowledge the need to learn material that is more recent than 75 years (or whatever cutoff - the Encyclopedia Britannica included is from 1911). Again, not math and science, those are already covered through non-public domain books. My assumption is that families would devise their own methods and find their own material for this, just like for religion and foreign languages which are not included in the RC. Part of the philosophy of the RC seems to be that we should understand the present by learning its historical foundations. Those old books are how it is done best, in the opinion of RC. Of course, others could have different approaches to achieve the same goal. Still others might have an entirely different philosophy of how we should understand the present for their own reasons. I wouldn't expect that last group to agree with the book choices at all.

 

I'm not convinced that those books with lists (hypothetical or real) have the same objectives as the RC list. For example, the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die list has no mention of Lincoln or Washington (George or Booker T.) No Cicero. No Caesar. No Machiavelli. It's got Sherlock Holmes, but not Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm sure it's a very nice list, but clearly it's not trying to do the same thing. You can read all of those books, and I doubt you'd gain much knowledge about algebra. I will say, to its credit, it has no Bobbsey Twins.

 

Lastly, I'm not advocating that anyone be relieved of their hard-earned $200.

[Farrar]

My point about Charlotte's Web was that, while not on the RC book list, it is a more recent book (1952) that is included in many school (and homeschool) curricula. Lots of kids read it, and some turn out bad. Back in the day, lots of people read McGuffey (or - gasp - even G. A. Henty!) and turned out fine.

 

Secondly, I'm not missing the lack of parental involvement (or TV or sugar). I'm just not addressing that when I'm talking about the book list.

 

If I remember correctly, Robinson does acknowledge the need to learn material that is more recent than 75 years (or whatever cutoff - the Encyclopedia Britannica included is from 1911). Again, not math and science, those are already covered through non-public domain books. My assumption is that families would devise their own methods and find their own material for this, just like for religion and foreign languages which are not included in the RC. Part of the philosophy of the RC seems to be that we should understand the present by learning its historical foundations. Those old books are how it is done best, in the opinion of RC. Of course, others could have different approaches to achieve the same goal. Still others might have an entirely different philosophy of how we should understand the present for their own reasons. I wouldn't expect that last group to agree with the book choices at all.

 

I'm not convinced that those books with lists (hypothetical or real) have the same objectives as the RC list. For example, the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die list has no mention of Lincoln or Washington (George or Booker T.) No Cicero. No Caesar. No Machiavelli. It's got Sherlock Holmes, but not Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm sure it's a very nice list, but clearly it's not trying to do the same thing. You can read all of those books, and I doubt you'd gain much knowledge about algebra. I will say, to its credit, it has no Bobbsey Twins.

 

Lastly, I'm not advocating that anyone be relieved of their hard-earned $200.

 

Lots of kids read Henty and turned out "fine" if by fine you mean that they internalized what was then a totally acceptable level of racism.

 

Really, I don't know what you're even trying to argue here. There are many other lists out there that do include lots of classics. You pulled one that has a different bent. I think, as Tibbie mentioned above, that most of the members here would say the WTM lists for middle and high school would provide a much superior foundation without most of the dreck and in the same philosophical vein of understanding today by looking at the foundations.

 

I think the core of the argument that many of us are trying to make is that RC is a terrible philosophy and curriculum for a laundry list of reasons. One of those reasons is that it venerates old books by virtue of their age and not quality or relevance. Another is that a relatively large number of the books are both of poor quality and casual racism. If those reasons aren't *enough* then there is the additional fact that there are a number of other educational philosophies and curricula that have the potentially good elements of RC without any of that baggage, again WTM being one of them. Thus, there's no reason to try and look beyond the problems to the "good parts."

[momma2three]

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die is a list of fiction books... it's not surprising that it doesn't have biographies or history.  As for Holmes' poetry, I'll preface this by saying that I'm really into poetry, and make my kids read tons of poems, and I read poems to them all the time, and I'll just say that I'd never prevent my kids from reading any book of poetry they want in their free time, but there are about 100 poets whose books I'd have them read before we got to Holmes.

Which is kind of my point. If I wanted to teach my kids great poetry on the cheap, I'd go to Amazon and buy the last (not current, the one before that) edition of The Norton Anthology of Poetry (available used for $1.89 plus $3.99 shipping and handling... In my copy, which is the "shorter 4th edition," Holmes has one poem in it, "The Chambered Nautilus," which is worth teaching) and work through that. The thing's about 1500 pages, arranged chronologically. I'd also buy the Random House Book of Children's Poetry (83¢ used, plus $3.99 shipping and handling) and work on that with kids.

Which is also kind of my point... what Robinson tried to do has been done, by others, much better, and much cheaper (free, if you have a decent library). You'd have to get a couple books to compile a complete k-12 curriculum. Even if you know nothing about children's literature, a few google searches about "list of children's book prizes" and then finding those titles would more than cover you for literature from about k-6. Then look up the Core Knowledge Curriculum subject list to search for non-fiction subjects, and find books on them. Middle school would be kind of a mix of the above (I'd probably wait until about 7th grade for The Giver, for example, but a 7th grader is also certainly ready for some adult topics), and then find a book about "Great Books" and work through that for literature and some history.  And, as Farrar says, even The Well-Trained Mind has book lists, and they're much better than the Robinson one.
 

[Hunter]

I just lost my long post. Maybe it was stuff that doesn't need to be heard here.

[Spy Car]

Robinson does acknowledge the need to learn material that is more recent than 75 years okd. Such as how to protect ones home from thermo-nuclear war using duct-tape and aluminum foil. I believe that is a Junior year of High School assignment (my boy would like that one).

 

He'd also teach students that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. That climate change isn't real or related to human activity.

 

He'd teach students that exposure radioactive waste is good for people. That we should spread nuclear waste across the landscape, dropping it from airplanes, and mix it into the cement for the foundations of homes, and dump it at sea. All this exposure to radiation would cure us of diseases, through a process he calls "hormesis,"

 

Fun guy.

 

Bill

[Hunter]

Robinson does acknowledge the need to learn material that is more recent than 75 years okd. Such as how to protect ones home from thermo-nuclear war using duct-tape and aluminum foil. I believe that is a Junior year of High School assignment (my boy would like that one).

 

He'd also teach students that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. That climate change isn't real or related to human activity.

 

He'd teach students that exposure radioactive waste is good for people. That we should spread nuclear waste across the landscape, dropping it from airplanes, and mix it into the cement for the foundations of homes, and dump it at sea. All this exposure to radiation would cure us of diseases, through a process he calls "hormesis,"

 

Fun guy.

 

Bill

I like Robinson as much as I like you, Bill. Yes, he is a fun guy!

 

Robinson is human. Decades ago, out in the boonies, he got thrown in over his head. Instead of giving up and sinking, he set a flawed example that even decades later in a world that has changed so much I still use use some golden nuggets he taught me.

 

People don't have to be perfect for me to admire them and to learn what I can from their sometimes very flawed example.

 

Adversity is funny. It brings out both the best and worst in people. Survivors are messy and heroes at the same time.

 

Stuff Robinson said a long time ago needs to be looked at in the context of the world he was living in at the time. I remember some Time Magazine articles that would horrify people today. Does time make Robinson or Time Magazine right? I didn't say that. I don't believe in right anyway.

 

Fun, yup, Robinson is fun. I have a soft spot for him.

 

And at least, as far as I know, Robinson never poisoned himself, his kids, or anyone else with radiation. I cannot say that for some of the people I knew in the past.

 

Are Spy Car and Robinson the same person? :lol:

[FO4UR]

I like Robinson as much as I like you, Bill. Yes, he is a fun guy!

 

Robinson is human. Decades ago, out in the boonies, he got thrown in over his head. Instead of giving up and sinking, he set a flawed example that even decades later in a world that has changed so much I still use use some golden nuggets he taught me.

 

People don't have to be perfect for me to admire them and to learn what I can from their sometimes very flawed example.

 

Adversity is funny. It brings out both the best and worst in people. Survivors are messy and heroes at the same time.

 

Stuff Robinson said a long time ago needs to be looked at in the context of the world he was living in at the time. I remember some Time Magazine articles that would horrify people today. Does time make Robinson or Time Magazine right? I didn't say that. I don't believe in right anyway.

 

Fun, yup, Robinson is fun. I have a soft spot for him.

 

And at least, as far as I know, Robinson never poisoned himself, his kids, or anyone else with radiation. I cannot say that for some of the people I knew in the past.

 

Are Spy Car and Robinson the same person? :lol:

 

 

How you put thoughtful, profound, and hilarious in the same post...sheer genius... :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :cheers2:

 

 

Can you imagine if Robinson met his adversity today?  He'd be on these forums asking our advice.  Would he be any better off?  

 

 

Perhaps he wouldn't cling onto radiation and HIV in 2015.  What do we cling onto that people will laugh at 30 years from now?

 

Perhaps he would choose a video based program instead of his routine of reading/writing/math.  Would that really be any better?

[Hunter]

Thanks 4blessingmom!

 

What a great question. What would Robinson have chosen, now? What would have been left behind by his wife who had been fortunately overwhelmed with the need to hoard all that her children would need for years to come.

 

The Robinson method is a result of what Robinson found on the bookshelves.

[Hunter]

Fish oil pills. I think we are going to be mocked for eating and burping up fish oil pills. :lol:

 

Yes, the theory behind why we did it will be discussed, but it won't matter. We will be mocked.

 

So, just warning any curriculum writers out there, if you are pro fish oil pills, don't discuss it if you don't want it thrown back in your face decades from now. :lol:

[FO4UR]

Fish oil pills. I think we are going to be mocked for eating and burping up fish oil pills. :lol:

 

Yes, the theory behind why we did it will be discussed, but it won't matter. We will be mocked.

 

So, just warning any curriculum writers out there, if you are pro fish oil pills, don't discuss it if you don't want it thrown back in your face decades from now. :lol:

 

 

I'm editing out that paragraph right now.  Good save. :lol:

[Farrar]

I think Robinson is (rightly) mocked for being out of step with the times though. I mean, when people look back, they mock the extremes and the people who were out of step. He was and is both. I'm sure we're all doing things that won't be seen as all that smart in the future, but I don't think we'll be that mockable.

 

Then again, I am not much on fish oil...

[Guest]

Thanks 4blessingmom!

 

What a great question. What would Robinson have chosen, now? What would have been left behind by his wife who had been fortunately overwhelmed with the need to hoard all that her children would need for years to come.

 

The Robinson method is a result of what Robinson found on the bookshelves.

 

Yeah, but why would you want to keep taking educational advice from someone once you found out they give atrocious advice.

 

I totally understand his context. I totally understand his kids are A-OK.

 

But there are VERY good reasons to look elsewhere, chief among them being how stupid-easy it is to get way better lists, books and advice nowadays. So what's the point of arguing that some of the books on the list are fine, and Arty had CONTEXT and everything else?

 

Hunter your own free curriculum guide is literally a million times better than this dude's cd set.

 

And for crying out loud the "cd set" itself is enough reason to do something, anything else. As someone mentioned, you could get 4 kindles right now for he price of those cds. Stay away for personal economics, if nothing else!

[Slache]

Then again, I am not much on fish oil...

They make me look 10 years younger.

[momma2three]

Yeah, but why would you want to keep taking educational advice from someone once you found out they give atrocious advice.

 

I totally understand his context. I totally understand his kids are A-OK.

 

But there are VERY good reasons to look elsewhere, chief among them being how stupid-easy it is to get way better lists, books and advice nowadays. So what's the point of arguing that some of the books on the list are fine, and Arty had CONTEXT and everything else?

 

Hunter your own free curriculum guide is literally a million times better than this dude's cd set.

 

And for crying out loud the "cd set" itself is enough reason to do something, anything else. As someone mentioned, you could get 4 kindles right now for he price of those cds. Stay away for personal economics, if nothing else!

 

I can't "like" this a million times, so I'm just going to quote it and say that this basically sums everything up.

 

Also, we seem to have scared off the original poster, LOL.

[FO4UR]

Yeah, but why would you want to keep taking educational advice from someone once you found out they give atrocious advice.

 

I totally understand his context. I totally understand his kids are A-OK.

 

But there are VERY good reasons to look elsewhere, chief among them being how stupid-easy it is to get way better lists, books and advice nowadays. So what's the point of arguing that some of the books on the list are fine, and Arty had CONTEXT and everything else?

 

Hunter your own free curriculum guide is literally a million times better than this dude's cd set.

 

And for crying out loud the "cd set" itself is enough reason to do something, anything else. As someone mentioned, you could get 4 kindles right now for he price of those cds. Stay away for personal economics, if nothing else!

 

 

I don't.  My first post in this thread was along the lines of "Don't buy RC!"  I'm also the one who mentioned that you can buy 4 Kindles for $200.

 

 

Hunter's point (that I agree with) is that Art Robinson is a human who did the best he could with the resources he had at the time.  In that respect, what he did is admirable.

 

He was/is so very wrong on many things.  Yes!  Buying a set of CD's with public domain books on them is foolish in the day of eReaders. Yes!  It's easy to judge him from our standpoint, but a traumatic loss of a spouse puts life into a tailspin.  How many of us would come out unscathed?  We can agree that Robinson was very wrong, that the RC is outdated and not worth the investment, without being so arrogant to think that we could never make the same sorts of mistakes.  (I cleaned out expired fish oil pills from my cabinet last week.  I've moved on to coconut oil. :coolgleamA: )

 

 

 

Some people are lumping RC in with AO and others, and that is not a fair comparison.  I would agree that dumping a kid in a chair alone with an old antiquated history text is not a good idea.  I would also argue that the same book, used in a Socratic discussion, could bring about positive results.  I argue that it is not true that all people who use public domain history books are racist or ignorant of racism.  I've come to that conclusion through several of these discussions and years of teaching my own. 

 

 

There are several different topics in this thread, partially my fault.  Anyway, the OP certainly got more than he bargained for when he asked a simple question. :lol:  I hope we didn't scare him off.  

[Guest]

Right, 4blessingmom, you and I are in agreement! A pp seemed to be wantingto keep saying "yuhbut..." and there's just not much else to it. He did his best at the time. Admirable. Anyone today's most mediocre effort irt homeschooling specifically could be better. That context necessarily can not be replicated.

 

ETA--I don't see anyone saying they are perfect. I guess I don't understand what the point is of going on about how he did his best.

 

Great.

 

Now go do your best (general you), which in this day and age can not POSSIBLY be replicating the Robinson booklist and method exactly as written.

[Farrar]

I think the RC and AO lump in was caused by people saying don't do RC, do AO and some of us saying, um, there are some of the same concerns with some AO titles. I agree though... I think I lumped them together and they're really different. AO has redeeming qualities... I wouldn't recommend it because of how they stand by This Country of Ours and a few other books, but the core CM ideology isn't like RC for sure.

[Spy Car]

It is complete romanticism that Art Robinson "did his best" after his wife's passing. his time was consumed feverishly cranking out crack-pot conspiracy theories and waco-a-doodle anti-science.

 

Weird cancer "cures" (Robinson believes extremely poor nutrition is the way to beat cancer), denying climate change, enchantment with nuclear waste as a cure for disease, nuclear survival skills, and more.

 

Then Robinson sold people on "neglect" as a pedagogy, putting the kids to work scanning public domain books and packing/shipping them out so he could stick to his "important work."

 

Some hero  :lol:

 

Bill

 

[ElizaG]

Methodology question about RC, as it's been years since I looked at it up close.

 

As I recall, the children are supposed to write a paper each day about what they're reading. The parent reads the papers and gives feedback. For children who can read and write, this is pretty much the only formal academic teaching the parent does. (Informal teaching would include dinner table discussions, mentoring in various daily life activities, and modeling study habits by doing written work in the same room during school time.)

 

Does RC give topics for the papers, or does the child pick their own, or does the parent pick them?

 

I know that many families end up modifying or supplementing the writing part of the curriculum (I've seen Understanding Writing and Bravewriter mentioned). Just wanted to be clear on the original plan.

[Hunter]

Robinson and AO have taught me things that I wouldn't have learned elsewhere. I will be forever grateful to both of them, no matter what else they do.

 

No, Robinson and AO are not the same.

 

I have lived in very different cultures and am no longer a part of any of them. I don't know. I just...see that some people and groups have an amazingly wide spectrum. I don't like the terms good and bad. But for lack of vocabulary, some people and groups have an amazing spectrum of good and bad. The bad doesn't cancel the good; the good doesn't cancel the bad.

 

They just are. I watch. I learn and copy the useful and helpful bits.

[Hunter]

I think Robinson is (rightly) mocked for being out of step with the times though. I mean, when people look back, they mock the extremes and the people who were out of step. He was and is both. I'm sure we're all doing things that won't be seen as all that smart in the future, but I don't think we'll be that mockable.

 

Then again, I am not much on fish oil...

I'm capable of being that mockable and more.

 

Today IRL, I said more than I should to a person I should know better. Speaking makes a person vulnerable. Writing is worse. It can be thrown out there, out of context, even 4000 years later.

 

This morning I worked on the Rainbow a bit, but this afternoon I am frozen. I'm afraid to put my flawed self out there, especially in writing.

 

This is the thing, being in the fire scars you as well as forcing you to be creative and grow. And the burnt and crispy people might not be able to tell what is worth saying and what isn't. Cause being in the fire isn't all peachy.

 

To others in fires, advice from burnt veterans is of use. And just because it is sneered at by the unscarred lucky people, doesn't mean it isn't damn good advice to burn victims.

 

As long as comfy cozy people just sneer at the burn victims instead of being able to see past the oozing infected wounds, and as long as the burn victims are not brave enough and humble enough to ask for help from the healthier, we are going to stay stuck right where we are.

 

We will stay stuck with crap, and will stay stuck with resources that work for the comfortable but not for those in need.

 

We will just have threads like this forever. We won't move forward.

 

Racism isn't the only discrimination.

[Hunter]

It is complete romanticism that Art Robinson "did his best" after his wife's passing. his time was consumed feverishly cranking out crack-pot conspiracy theories and waco-a-doodle anti-science.

 

Weird cancer "cures" (Robinson believes extremely poor nutrition is the way to beat cancer), denying climate change, enchantment with nuclear waste as a cure for disease, nuclear survival skills, and more.

 

Then Robinson sold people on "neglect" as a pedagogy, putting the kids to work scanning public domain books and packing/shipping them out so he could stick to his "important work."

 

Some hero :lol:

 

Bill

He is my hero, Bill. I was kind of stuck on a couple issues that were not answered in the brand new TWTM or anywhere else. I was stuck and floundering. I didn't "do" Robinson or buy the CDs, but...I got unstuck after reading at a Robinson forum. He helped ME.

 

Some really flawed messed up people have been there at my breaking points. They were the ones THERE. They were MY heroes. Because they were THERE. And "better" people were not.

[ElizaG]

Thanks, ltlmrs. I found a bit more information: they aren't expected to start writing the daily essays until they're doing copywork very well, which is typically around age 10. The copywork seems to be taken from McGuffey and the KJV.

 

We actually have the curriculum around in a box somewhere, though we've never used it. I bought it when my eldest was tiny, after repeated recommendations from family members who (in hindsight) had considerable knowledge of nuclear technology, but very little knowledge of homeschooling. ;-)

 

In principle, I don't fully agree with AR's heavy emphasis on solitary book-learning - which is shared by Stanley Schmidt, author of Life of Fred - and I think this comes down to theological differences: Catholic vs. the more DIY sort of Protestant. But in practice, I think it's hard to overstate the importance of these skills. And I'm willing to entertain the idea that selecting reading material, commenting on written work, and requiring consistent effort are the most decisive ways that we can contribute to our children's academic growth. I've certainly found them to be the most demanding parts of homeschooling, and going by posts on these boards, I don't think I'm the only one.

[Spy Car]

The notion that a child can teach themselves to read, then plow though the great books by themselves while one works feverishly cranking out conspiracy theories and an anti-scientific newsletter, is selling THE BIG LIE.

 

Don't fall for this fraud. This is one more road to educational neglect offered for sale to homeschoolers who fall for the siren-song that they as parents don't have to put any time or care into their children's educations.

 

Bill

 

 

[MomatHWTK]

So I dunno guys, how do you think Bill really feels about this curriculum?  I'm getting mixed signals.  Is it passionately hate or hate passionately?   :hat:

[Guest]

So I dunno guys, how do you think Bill really feels about this curriculum?  I'm getting mixed signals.  Is it passionately hate or hate passionately?   :hat:

 

The problem that he's too subtle. If only he felt comfortable just saying what's on his mind!

[Hunter]

I don't have the CDs. Children are not expected to teach themselves to read, right? I've never heard that.

 

And some kids do teach themselves to read. I did. And then yes, I started reading Great Books when I found them at yard sales and the library and really didn't notice the difference between twaddle and Great Books. Books were books and they all were inhaled.

 

The Robinson kids got a whole lot more instruction and access to better curriculum than I did, for the most part.

 

Quite a few people on the thread about being read to as a child have similar stories. A bunch of us taught ourselves to read, went to low-income schools than entirely ignored us, and we scrounged books from wherever we could. Our education was almost entirely what we scrounged.

 

I would have learned more being left alone with a pile of Saxon and the Robinson book list than I did in school. Except for the Latin. I had a decent slow and steady Latin teacher for a couple years. She would be called negligent here, but...I learned enough from her to self-education later.

[scoutingmom]

I taught myself to read too.... but the Robinson Curriculum isn't saying to expect that. I think there was some information on teaching how to read, I think partly using McGuffy (book 1 on the list). The self-directed part is after they can read for the reading, after they know math facts for math, and after they have learned handwriting for writing (and uses copywork for quite a while).

 

If a student needs help - say in math - they are to reread the problem, outloud, and look earlier in the book. Or for other things, they learn how to find other sources of information before asking a parent. But if truley stuck you would help them.

 

My understanding from reading the sites etc.... we haven't used it.

 

This is my understanding from looking int

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Haiku]

I wonder what Art Robinson would do about a kid with learning disabilities.

[Tress]

I'm pretty sure he would say that if you don't watch TV and don't eat sugar, you will not have learning disabillities. Hmmmmm.

[Haiku]

I'm pretty sure he would say that if you don't watch TV and don't eat sugar, you will not have learning disabillities. Hmmmmm.

 

Riiiiight ...

[ElizaG]

I'm pretty sure he would say that if you don't watch TV and don't eat sugar, you will not have learning disabillities. Hmmmmm.

Where did you hear that?

 

There's a bit about atypical learners in the video on their site, and although it's very short (because, like the curriculum in general, it's based on his own experience), his tone is nothing like the above. It seemed pretty balanced to me.

 

IDK what practical things parents have done to adapt the approach for children with disabilities, but I'm going to guess that there are posts about this in the e-mail support groups.

[Hunter]

Where did you hear that?

 

There's a bit about atypical learners in the video on their site, and although it's very short (because, like the curriculum in general, it's based on his own experience), his tone is nothing like the above. It seemed pretty balanced to me.

 

IDK what practical things parents have done to adapt the approach for children with disabilities, but I'm going to guess that there are posts about this in the e-mail support groups.

Back around Y2K, there were amazing posts at the yahoo email list about tweaking for disabilities.

[Alessandra]

I wonder what Art Robinson would do about a kid with learning disabilities.

Or even an emotional/social need to interact with people.

 

I know one is not supposed to diagnose over the Internet, but, after watching the video upthread, I cannot help but sift through DSM possibilities for AR.

[Targhee]

I am not a Robinson user or proponent. But, I did watch his explanatory video. I think he was pretty candid that he's not an expert and this is just what he did because of their situation, and it worked for his kids. People asked him to share it. It isn't as though he's out there pushing this on anyone, just responding to people's requests.

 

I don't think RC would work at our house, but neither does WTM as written. My kids can't self-regulate to that extent because of their intrinsic learning styles, and their ADHD. And one is way too social to thrive this way even if she could direct herself in all areas.

 

But I think the OP was asking for input from people who have used RC. It worked for his family - has it worked for other families? How did you go about getting them independent? Can you substitute your own reading lists easily? Etc. Why flame Art Robinson? What if were your son we were talking about?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I am not a Robinson user or proponent. But, I did watch his explanatory video. I think he was pretty candid that he's not an expert and this is just what he did because of their situation, and it worked for his kids. People asked him to share it. It isn't as though he's out there pushing this on anyone, just responding to people's requests.

 

I don't think RC would work at our house, but neither does WTM as written. My kids can't self-regulate to that extent because of their intrinsic learning styles, and their ADHD. And one is way too social to thrive this way even if she could direct herself in all areas.

 

But I think the OP was asking for input from people who have used RC. It worked for his family - has it worked for other families? How did you go about getting them independent? Can you substitute your own reading lists easily? Etc. Why flame Art Robinson? What if were your son we were talking about?

 

If my sons turn out to behave and believe like Art Robinson, they will not be surprised to hear an opinion or two from me. If they go a step further and convince other people to shell out a couple hundred dollars so that their children can be exposed to the crazy, as well, nobody will be surprised if I do my level best to expose them publicly for it.

 

I just don't think that's a sound argument.

[Targhee]

If my sons turn out to behave and believe like Art Robinson, they will not be surprised to hear an opinion or two from me. If they go a step further and convince other people to shell out a couple hundred dollars so that their children can be exposed to the crazy, as well, nobody will be surprised if I do my level best to expose them publicly for it.

 

I just don't think that's a sound argument.

It isn't an argument. If anything it points out an ad hominem attack. I added the point about "what if this was your child?" in hopes of encouraging civility and respect.

 

My point was only to stay on point - does anyone here have experience with the curriculum and if so share your experience.

[Luanne]

 nm

Edited November 12, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
No personal insults, please.

[ElizaG]

There are really a bunch of points at issue here:

 

- The RC self-teaching method

- Whether or not some families would find it worthwhile, in principle, to pay for a good quality curriculum made of public domain materials (e.g. for convenience, or for better scans or formatting), and if so, how much would be reasonable

- The overall calibre of the books on the RC list, and their suitability for a given family

- Issues with specific books on the list

- Objections to supporting anything related to AR, due to strong disagreement with some of his views on science, etc.

 

I don't have major issues with RC on the first two grounds. Yes, there are lots of free e-books out there, but many of us are willing to pay for organizational help. Based on personal experience, I tend to wonder if the people saying "just DIY" so casually have ever actually put together a full, easily printable collection of public domain materials for K-12. My time has value, and if this curriculum were even halfway useful to us, I think it might be worth the cost. (It's interesting that people consider $200 for RC to be ridiculously excessive, when it's become common to charge hundreds of dollars for single online courses - whether live or recorded - many of which are basically fluff IMNSHO. But they're "current tech" fluff, which I guess makes it okay.)

 

Likewise, the last two points aren't a big deal for me, as we can just skip over anything we find questionable. I do understand if some people are turned off completely by some parts, though. I feel the same way about certain other curriculum authors and publishers.

 

So the only likely deal-breaker for us would be the overall suitability of the book list for our family. It would need quite a lot of tweaking and supplementing to fit with our goals for our children's education, and when I last considered it, it didn't seem worth the effort. Thanks to this thread, though, I might give it another look. (If it doesn't pass the test this time around, we probably ought to just send it to the Book Samaritan. Along with a whole lot of other stuff that didn't work out as expected.)