Jump to content

Menu

Identifying with types of homeschooling


Recommended Posts

Do you identify as a particular type of homeschooler?  I was at an event the other day where most of the families are in CC. When asked, the majority I have spoken to either say they do CC or classical education. There was another mom who identifies as a Charlotte Mason homeschooler, and a third who says she is a mish-mash.

When I first started reading about homeschooling I remember reading about the different types, but now that we are on our 6th year I find that I don’t really identify with any of the types.  I guess technically I would be considered an eclectic homeschooler, but I would never use that term to describe our style.  It seems most people around here claim their type as the co-op their kids attend.

When people ask me what I use, I tell them I loosely follow WTM with a lot of CM influences, but that isn’t really a homeschool type. It’s just the method I use for planning purposes.

Anyway, now that I’ve been homeschooling awhile I am curious if other homeschoolers actually identify with a specific type of homeschooling, or if like me they just homeschool but don’t identify with a specific label?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always identified as an eclectic homeschooler, and I say that IRL. However, I used the term "Neoclassical" in my school profile document  (for college apps for my oldest). This is my 13th year homeschooling and I'm still a believer in memorization (to build mental muscle), Latin as a language base, and working hard to make sure my kids have a good foundation in reading, writing (but maybe never being a great speller), and math. I feel like those are neoclassical foundations.

But, I can't stick to anything as written. Too eclectic. :ph34r: 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't enter into homeschooling with any foreknowledge of homeschooling even existing.  I just sort of jumped in head first and knew immediately what I would never do again.  That very first yr I used Seton and from the very first day I thought.....no way.

I abandoned that ship and have ever since homeschooled the child in front of me.  It isn't about any single philosophy (though I am well-read on numerous philosophies and various educational pedagogies.)  I can easily discuss the merits of classical education,  neoclassical education, and CM.  I do not accept any of them as the dominant influence over our homeschool.  If I had to say what has influenced me the most it would be understanding the development of higher order critical thinking skills (simplified in my board discussions as Bloom's taxonomy).  My goal for my kids is far more focused on learning how to learn and fostering internal motivation for learning as a life goal than toward knowledge for the sake of checking off a subject box.

FWIW,  I have been doing this since for almost 25 yrs and still can't very simply tell people what we do except for perhaps saying I mostly follow the Ignatian philosophy of education, but that is meaningless to most homeschoolers.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

  My goal for my kids is far more focused on learning how to learn and fostering internal motivation for learning as a life goal than toward knowledge for the sake of checking off a subject box.

This is what I hope I am doing! I enjoy reading about different educational philosophies and reading about what does and doesn’t work for others. In the end though I try to do what works for my kids, and I hope my kids love to learn and become life long learners. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

I don't identify with a specific label either at this point. I think I've "tried" on several, but none of them fit me or my kids. We are a complete mish-mash at this point. I LOVE reading about CM the most, but I can't do it all that way. I also will never be hard-core enough to be Classical as far as what Classical now represents to me. I think when I went in only having read WTM I had one idea of Classical, but now, I feel like many of the current big players in Classical have pushed it to a new level I don't aspire to. I'm glad I've read everything I have though, and I'll continue to read and pull from things as I go. 

I think I can identify with what you are seeing with CC too. They are a group unto their own as far as I'm concerned. I think once you are on a conveyor belt that tells you exactly what to use, what year to use it in, how to pace your child, and everything else that goes along with it, it definitely warrants it's own label. 

I could have written this. I love listening to the Mason Jar and reading about CM, but that’s not what really what I do. I kind of pick and choose what I like about CM. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WTM was my inspiration for homeschooling because it was the education I always wished I'd had. But, 5 years into it, and now with two very different learners (who are still very little kids), I would describe us as secular, academic, eclectic homeschoolers. However, I have become more relaxed, as time has gone on, and am increasingly seeing the benefits of unschooling/child-led much of the younger years, particularly with respect to the content subjects.

Edited by SeaConquest
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

I abandoned that ship and have ever since homeschooled the child in front of me.

This. I am also eclectic. I have been influenced by WTM and CM but ultimately, I have to do what works for my child. It always irks me when I see homeschool parents trying so hard to stick to a philosophy at the expense of what their child wants/needs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I "identify" pretty strongly with CM.  This doesn't mean, from my perspective, that I follow some set of rules.  It's because I believe in her view of what it means to be a person, and what it means to be educated - in may ways this is about working in the same religious/spiritual tradition as she did.  Practically speaking, it means that I do use many of her methods as they extend logical from her principles - but in many things, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I work with the students and environment I happen to find myself with.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eclectic is hard for me because it sounds like taking bits and pieces from different styles, where I feel my approach is a whole different animal than anything else. Even if I used other styles to inform what we do at home they aren’t staticly intact ports, arranged like room featured in Dwell.  They’ve been melted down a bit, molded and reshaped.  So I don’t know what the term is... ?

For simplicity in conversation I tend to explain it as a classical bent, but child directed, and darn near unschooly in the younger years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people are eclectic...except for the ones who are brilliant and invent their own methods, like Jessica Hulcy (unit studies) and SWB. :-)

And when I say "eclectic," I just mean that most folks don't identify with a specific method or philosophy promoted by someone else, but rather just sort of flow into their own way of doing things.

I tend to be more unschool-y, even though I appreciate things about TWTM, or Charlotte Mason, or unit studies, or even traditional textbooks. I did do KONOS for two years, and I might have done it more if I had seen it before I read all of John Holt's books, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

I "identify" pretty strongly with CM.  This doesn't mean, from my perspective, that I follow some set of rules.  It's because I believe in her view of what it means to be a person, and what it means to be educated - in may ways this is about working in the same religious/spiritual tradition as she did.  Practically speaking, it means that I do use many of her methods as they extend logical from her principles - but in many things, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I work with the students and environment I happen to find myself with.  

Like this, but within the Christian classical education tradition.  I was having problems figuring out my answer, because while I can't really say that I am following any one particular method "by the book", I am definitely working within a particular, definable tradition.  I usually say I'm a "wisdom and virtue" classical educator, but that's more identifying the broad part of the classical tradition that I'm working in than anything more particular.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually identified as "literature-based eclectic" because I had a strong emphasis on read-alouds and on incorporating biographies and historical fiction to our studies. I used a lot of Sonlight but also drew from other sources when choosing books--but the "core" that drove me was the literature focus. CM and Classical influences played a roll here and there. Eclectic because I sometimes used textbooks or other types of materials that I came across. (I wasn't lit-based for math--just a rare tie-in, unlike what some people do who are more strongly in that camp, etc...)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ellie said:

I think most people are eclectic...except for the ones who are brilliant and invent their own methods, like Jessica Hulcy (unit studies) and SWB. ?

And when I say "eclectic," I just mean that most folks don't identify with a specific method or philosophy promoted by someone else, but rather just sort of flow into their own way of doing things.

I tend to be more unschool-y, even though I appreciate things about TWTM, or Charlotte Mason, or unit studies, or even traditional textbooks. I did do KONOS for two years, and I might have done it more if I had seen it before I read all of John Holt's books, lol.

That’s kind of what I was curious about. The two people who I know in really life that offer me the most guidance don’t seem to have any particular homeschooling identity, but they definitely have goals for what they want to accomplish. With the exception of my friends in CC, I haven’t met many people who claim a particular homeschooling  identity. They are definitely influenced by certain philosophies but most people just say they homeschool. In further conversation you might learn the types of curriculum they use for math or science or read alouds they enjoy, but it seems like the labels don’t come up in conversation.

Unschooling doesn’t seem to be very popular around me, but it does seem like that is a label that people claim. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, --- said:

I didn't even know there were different types of hs'ing for a long time.  It was all just curr to me.  

Then, after I discovered WTM, I said we did mostly WTM whenever anyone asked.  Then, when I began trying to explain that I added some things and took away other things, my 'explanation' would kind of fall apart as I saw it wasn't making much sense to the person, so I would kind of fade out.  

I think the hardest thing to convey, though, was that it was a lifestyle for us.  The books without the lifestyle just wouldn't have produced the same thing.  Most people don't understand that.  What brought it home to me was after our hs'ing was over, and I was toying with the idea of tutoring.  I began to realize that in order to get similar results with someone else's kids, I would probably have to do a lot more than just tutor.  Then, when one of my dd's pointed that out to me, I realized that I probably wouldn't want to tutor, so that kind of squelched that idea.  So hs'ing for us truly included the whole ball of wax, and one without the other seemed meaningless to me.  

I never really thought about it, but I do think homeschooling is more about a lifestyle for us than just something we do a few hours a day. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rachel said:

That’s kind of what I was curious about. The two people who I know in really life that offer me the most guidance don’t seem to have any particular homeschooling identity, but they definitely have goals for what they want to accomplish. With the exception of my friends in CC, I haven’t met many people who claim a particular homeschooling  identity. They are definitely influenced by certain philosophies but most people just say they homeschool. In further conversation you might learn the types of curriculum they use for math or science or read alouds they enjoy, but it seems like the labels don’t come up in conversation.

Unschooling doesn’t seem to be very popular around me, but it does seem like that is a label that people claim. 

And that's why I *never* tell baby homeschoolers to get started by deciding what their philosophy of education is (or by determining their children's learning styles). I just tell them to read lots of stuff, comply with their homeschool laws (if any), and hang with their children. They'll figure it out.

Lots of people use the term "unschooling" when they don't really know what it means, because they haven't read John Holt. :-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm forced to say what sort of homeschoolers we are, I will use the term "rigorous academic," which I came upon here, in one of these sorts of discussions.  This was an appropriate description of our homeschool about 8-10 years ago.  Since that time, I've gradually focused less on "rigor" and more on creating meaningful academic experiences.  Rigor is still in there, but it isn't the main point,  partially because I now know what goes on in "rigorous" traditional schools.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ellie said:

And that's why I *never* tell baby homeschoolers to get started by deciding what their philosophy of education is (or by determining their children's learning styles). I just tell them to read lots of stuff, comply with their homeschool laws (if any), and hang with their children. They'll figure it out.

Lots of people use the term "unschooling" when they don't really know what it means, because they haven't read John Holt. ?

I agree that choosing a philosophy from the beginning is not the best advice, but like you said / to read lots of stuff - I think reading about homeschooling philosophies and using them as a starting points is probably a good place to begin, and learning styles.  That isn’t to say you WAIT to do anything until you’ve figured it all out (ha! nothing would happen. Ever) but that you start doing something (eg a routine of daily events, start with some shared literature, etc) while you work on finding out those bigger questions. And that’s what i usually tell people - start with routine, some basic 3Rs, all the while ingesting ascmuch information as possible so you can determine how you’ll get to where you want to be.  I hate trying to answer the newbie questions like “We just pulled them out of school. What do I do now? Which curriculum do I use?” because it is too hard to answer those questions without context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rachel said:

That’s kind of what I was curious about. The two people who I know in really life that offer me the most guidance don’t seem to have any particular homeschooling identity, but they definitely have goals for what they want to accomplish. With the exception of my friends in CC, I haven’t met many people who claim a particular homeschooling  identity. They are definitely influenced by certain philosophies but most people just say they homeschool. In further conversation you might learn the types of curriculum they use for math or science or read alouds they enjoy, but it seems like the labels don’t come up in conversation.

Unschooling doesn’t seem to be very popular around me, but it does seem like that is a label that people claim. 

For all that I put a lot of thought into how I can educate in line with my religious tradition, and am happy to discuss it online, in person I just say I homeschool.  In theory I'd love to discuss my overall big picture approach further if asked, but in practice when people ask follow-up questions, they are either more hs lifestyle questions or questions about what curricula I use, and I mostly just give short, canned, inoffensive answers.  For "why homeschool" sorts of questions I say "to teach my kids at their level, and to match my dh's work schedule" - both true, but not really the whole story.  (But they are easy to understand and unlikely to offend those who use ps.)  In answering the curricula questions I really ought to go into my big picture approach, instead of stumbling through a "we use lots of different things, not just one publisher" explanation with a few specific examples tacked on (usually I say SM for math and SWB's LA).  IDK why I don't, other than my ability to come up with a short, coherent, off-the-cuff big picture explanation in the moment is poor (when I discuss it online, it usually takes me an hour or so per post to get my thoughts straight and coherently arranged), so I just go for the easy answer (lots o' things, such as SM and SWB). 

I'm rarely talking to other hs'ers irl, though - I developed those answers in response to non-hs'ers' questions.  But even conversations with hs'ers don't tend to involve philosophies or big picture approaches, even just in the form of labels for self-identification.  If we "talk shop", it's more about the nitty-gritty details of handling common sorts of difficult situations, or the day-to-day details.  But I'm not doing anything to encourage philosophical or big picture discussions myself, because I could easily attach "wisdom and virtue classical" to "homeschooler" when asked about my homeschooling, but I don't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2018 at 3:09 PM, Bluegoat said:

I "identify" pretty strongly with CM.  This doesn't mean, from my perspective, that I follow some set of rules.  It's because I believe in her view of what it means to be a person, and what it means to be educated - in may ways this is about working in the same religious/spiritual tradition as she did.  Practically speaking, it means that I do use many of her methods as they extend logical from her principles - but in many things, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I work with the students and environment I happen to find myself with.  

This is where I fall as well, with some input from WTM. And when CM stuff I see in various places gets too regimented and "purist" I always think, "didn't she say to mix it with brains?!"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Targhee said:

I agree that choosing a philosophy from the beginning is not the best advice, but like you said / to read lots of stuff - I think reading about homeschooling philosophies and using them as a starting points is probably a good place to begin, and learning styles.  That isn’t to say you WAIT to do anything until you’ve figured it all out (ha! nothing would happen. Ever) but that you start doing something (eg a routine of daily events, start with some shared literature, etc) while you work on finding out those bigger questions. And that’s what i usually tell people - start with routine, some basic 3Rs, all the while ingesting as much information as possible so you can determine how you’ll get to where you want to be.  I hate trying to answer the newbie questions like “We just pulled them out of school. What do I do now? Which curriculum do I use?” because it is too hard to answer those questions without context.

Oh, yes, read all about them, read everything, all the things. :-) But often people will advise newbies to make that decision first, right off the bat, right out the gate, bam. :-)

I also hate answering that question. Oy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my educational philosophy was probably most heavily influenced by my time in Quaker schools. They leave their mark on you. But try saying your homeschool philosophy is Quaker. Um... I guess at least the response would be silence. Heh.

I usually just say "eclectic." Sometimes I say "loosely child-led." 

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also have the “public school refugee” people locally who either homeschool or use a charter school which pays for approved curriculum/vendors because of issues with their assigned public schools for various reasons. 

A friend of mine who is a not snobbish person was saying (her opinion) that the 59% English and 34% Math pass rate in 11th grade state testing for the local better (richer parents and better academic performance) high school is due to having 40% low income families in that high school. She is an active parent volunteer there so maybe that’s how the high school explains it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, not homeschooling full time anymore, but when I was I would describe myself as imagination based homeschooling, with a side of Charlotte Mason and unit studies.  

I didn't feel that any type fit completely.   Incorporating pretend and fun was important because it was what got my child through it.   Later learned he had ADD, and a lot of the hoops we had to go through just to get work done without tears made a lot more sense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Plum Crazy said:

Yes. I just had a newbie ask for advice. I did briefly describe the philosophies and asked for her to imagine what her ideal homeschool would look like. What does she like? What do they like? Then I added that what she imagines might not be what works for one or all of her kids, so it may be necessary to readjust as you go. I went through my progression of philosophy and method. It's a lot to think about especially for a newbie. If I could at least give her a way to narrow her philosophy so she has some direction to go while she's working with her kids, she would have a better head start than I did. 

 

I think that a lot of this looking at the homeschool philosophies can help clarifying the Big Questions:  what does it mean to be educated?  What are your goals for education?  Why are you homeschooling rather than using the public system or going private?

Those are important things to have though about in order to make decisions about how to actually run your homeschool.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I for one would love to hear a bit more about Quaker schooling philosophy. Probably because I have always been fascinated by Quaker as I live in a Quaker-heavy area which is unusual in TX, but their school shut down aeons ago, so I'm in the dark about it. We know quite a few members of the local Friends church, but their kids all go to either the local private Baptist school (which is a whole interesting thought itself) or to the public school. 

The core of Quaker education philosophy is about seeing "that of God" in the child - that students aren't blank slates and they shouldn't be educated that way. There's a strong emphasis on process in education over product. There's an emphasis on learning consensus, on working together. Obviously an emphasis on nonviolence and this extends to discipline practices - like, a lack of coercion of kids and an emphasis on cooperation. Kids in Quaker schools generally do chores and work - at our school, they cleaned the school at the end of the day (and teaching middle schoolers to use vacuums is a calling I never knew I had). In the most radical Quaker schools (I taught in one...) teachers go by their first names - because in Quakerism, everyone is equal and titles aren't used. I'm not really summarizing it well, I'm sure. But Parker Palmer is an education writer who is Quaker. He's writing more about college students, but I'd say he's very Quaker in his thinking about education.

PS - You don't say Quaker or Friends church - you say Quaker or Friends Meeting. There are a couple of different strains of Quakerism in the US. Some Meetings are more like church with a program and an emphasis on God - especially out west, so it might be a community that's more like that. But in the east, the most common Meeting tends to be the silent sort and there are an increasing number of Quakers who are agnostic at best.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, EKS said:

When I'm forced to say what sort of homeschoolers we are, I will use the term "rigorous academic," which I came upon here, in one of these sorts of discussions.  This was an appropriate description of our homeschool about 8-10 years ago.  Since that time, I've gradually focused less on "rigor" and more on creating meaningful academic experiences.  Rigor is still in there, but it isn't the main point,  partially because I now know what goes on in "rigorous" traditional schools.

 

Hmm...I might be inclined to say I’m “rigorously academic” but now I’m wondering what you mean by saying that “I now know what goes on in “rigorous” traditional schools”.  What goes on there?  Why are you dropping the “rigorous” from your description?

*******

I have no idea what kind of homeschooler I am in a way.  I never read much about types of homeschooling, so I just do what I do.  My students don’t like projects or activities.  They prefer a text book with some output required by me. They like to have start times and end times.  They don’t want school to bleed over into other parts of the day—they will resist it greatly.  So...in a way we’re very schoolish around here.  Start times, end times, text books, assignments.  It works for my kids.  I’ve tried other things and they don’t like them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Garga said:

Hmm...I might be inclined to say I’m “rigorously academic” but now I’m wondering what you mean by saying that “I now know what goes on in “rigorous” traditional schools”.  What goes on there?  Why are you dropping the “rigorous” from your description?

I haven't really dropped "rigorous."  It's just that I'm not actively trying to make things rigorous.  I've discovered that "rigor" in schools is a joke, that at most kids just get a lot of homework (which I disagree with).  Now I know that even if I don't actively try to make my homeschool rigorous, it will be way more rigorous that what goes on in traditional schools.

So, when I am forced to define what type of homeschooler I am, I still say "rigorous academic." But I don't actively set out to make things rigorous, and instead actively set out to make things meaningful.

Edited by EKS
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, EKS said:

I haven't really dropped "rigorous."  It's just that I'm not actively trying to make things rigorous.  I've discovered that "rigor" in schools is a joke, that at most kids just get a lot of homework (which I disagree with).  Now I know that even if I don't actively try to make my homeschool rigorous, it will be way more rigorous that what goes on in traditional schools.

So, when I am forced to define how we homeschool, I still say "rigorous academic."  But I don't actively set out to make things rigorous, and instead actively set out to make things meaningful.

 

I don't think I ever said our approach was rigorous, but I've always wanted to give kids a substantial education, and requiring some real work was part of my thinking about it.

What I've seen though is in many cases "rigorous" schoolers seem focused on doing things even when I think it is probably inappropriate from a pedagogical POV.  It's something I noticed to in b&m classical schools I've encountered too.  I've kind of distanced myself from that thinking a little as a result.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, when asked, I say we are/were classical home educators but that isn’t really accurate.  Eclectic all the way,  I have always attempted to use the best curriculum available for each subject for each child.  To be honest we really like things to be a bit different.  The Amish Pathway Readers were a huge hit with Dd.  We spent hours sorting out the different horse drawn carriages names so she could do the phonics workbooks. She didn’t really need the phonics as she was reading quite well but being able to identify those pictures in the workbook..........Ds hated those books as he had learned the carriage names with dd, so the challenge was gone.  He needed the phonics and we used MCP for him. 

 I haven’t placed many filters on the curriculum’s origins, Christian or secular, if it stimulated some great discussion and we were learning,  we generally went with it.  I really just wanted things that worked well in the home, not designed for the classroom, so frequently the choices have been Christian.  That is what was available 15 years ago.

I have always been a curriculum collector except for our first year in England when I designed my own SL style from the library and shipped in one very expensive box of mainly math books.  When we moved to England everyone seemed to be free range with constant field trips.  I needed to explain that we actually did serious lessons most days and saying I was a Classical educator seemed to work best in terms of not hurting my new friend’s feelings when we didn’t have time to go pond dipping......my kids laugh about how that is all we ever did on those field trips!

The WTM has been my spine for lack of a better description, it centered me.  I have loaned extra copies of that book to so many people who wanted to find a better way to home ed.   It was constantly my go to book when I needed to take the next step with the kids.  I would spend a few days immersing myself in the book, look at some catalogues, and be able to move forward with a plan.  I wonder how many times I have read the WTM!   Dh bought a copy of the first edition for me when dd was 2 and I have been lugging it around every since!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always pictured ourselves as a cross between Charlotte Mason and unit studies.  But...dh described our homeschool as "like a Montessori school" to someone once.  After googling what that actually entailed, I think he's right.  We are very similar to Montessori, especially at the high school level.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mish-mash here, aka eclectic!  I’m drawn to many aspects of WTM, many of CM, and many of Waldorf too. I also think there is some merit in a unit study type approach and/or a delight-driven one.

 

And then too, there are differences between younger and older students, and between my children’s personal learning styles. How I prefer to teach matters too. And time/energy. What I WANT or PREFER to do or what I feel is ideal doesn’t always match up with  the reality of my life situation. Sometimes a basic “get it done” is sufficient, and it beats not doing it at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my heart, I'm 100% CM.  However, for some reason my kids and I thrive with mostly classical. 

If I could start over, I think I'd just focus on the 3Rs and unschool everything else.  I think I'd feel a lot less guild over whether we are doing it right!  ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...