What does deep meaningful education mean if you reject rigor

[lewelma]

Corraleno's quote that got me thinking.  I'd love you guys to flesh this out. 

Here are a few of the definitions of "rigor" from Merriam Webster: Harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment... the quality of being unyielding or inflexible... severity of life, austerity... an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty... a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable... strict precision, exactness. Synonyms include adversity, difficulty, hardness, and hardship.

I'm looking to provide an education that is deep, meaningful, creative, and authentic, not one that is strict, inflexible, or severe. Academic work can certainly be deep and challenging without being tedious, painful, and overwhelming. EM used to argue vehemently against interest-led learning, claiming that kids who were allowed to follow their own interests would only ever choose easy, fluffy subjects, and would never learn to work hard or push themselves. I think the opposite is true: kids will often push themselves harder, and further out of their comfort zones, in pursuit of something that is genuinely meaningful to them.

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[Jean in Newcastle]

I guess that I relate more to a deep meaningful RELAXED education. For me that means that everything doesn’t have to be done 100% full steam ahead. That we can learn things without stress. That we can do more than scratch the surface or check off boxes to meet some academic checklist.  That we really can interact with material and wrestle with it because we like learning about something on a deeper level.
 

Now I have to admit that my own deep dives don’t always line up with my kids’ but I have grown to respect their deeper interests even as I did insist on a general proficiency in the “basics” that I feel make deeper more meaningful interactions with material possible. 

[Corraleno]

RIGOR: from Latin rigere, "to be stiff."  Synonyms include austerity, difficulty, harshness, rigidity, inflexibility.

VIGOR: from Latin vigere, "to be lively."  Synonyms include vitality, dynamism, agility, intensity, liveliness, healthiness.

I like the idea of a "vigorous education"" better than a "rigorous" one.

[lewelma]

I've got a ton of ideas on this question, but I'm off to sleep. zzzzz

[Little Green Leaves]

I love the idea of a "vigorous" education!

I think for me, "rigor" means the ability to focus and push through things which are useful in the long run but not terribly exciting in the moment. For example the ability to read a dry theoretical text so that you can later debate it. I think there's rigor in all kinds of things -- like, when I clean behind the fridge I feel like I'm being rigorous. 

I've always struggled with self-discipline  -- I tend to work in fits and starts -- and this is an area where I'd like my kids to do better than me! so I do get a kick out of reading people's "rigorous" home schooling plans. This thread is a nice counter to that, and a great reminder that rigor is also, well, rigid and limiting.

I do want my kids to have discipline and the ability to do not-fun stuff, but I want them to also find joy and vigor in their education. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Little Green Leaves

[Jean in Newcastle]

20 minutes ago, Little Green Leaves said:

I love the idea of a "vigorous" education!

I think for me, "rigor" means the ability to focus and push through things which are useful in the long run but not terribly exciting in the moment. For example the ability to read a dry theoretical text so that you can later debate it. I think there's rigor in all kinds of things -- like, when I clean behind the fridge I feel like I'm being rigorous. 

I've always struggled with self-discipline  -- I tend to work in fits and starts -- and this is an area where I'd like my kids to do better than me! so I do get a kick out of reading people's "rigorous" home schooling plans. This thread is a nice counter to that, and a great reminder that rigor is also, well, rigid and limiting.

I do want my kids to have discipline and the ability to do not-fun stuff, but I want them to also find joy and vigor in their education. 

Exactly. There are “chores” in learning as well as other areas of life and being less rigorous has not meant not having to do anything that isn’t genuine work. 
 

When my kids were in elementary we had “rabbit trail days” when we would follow up on rabbit trails that had come up in our studies. I kept a list. 
 

When my kids hit middle school then they had more input into our studies. 
 

When they hit high school I became more of a facilitator. 

[Rosie_0801]

I think of rigour as doing whatever needs to be done to move their educations along to where it needs to go. For skills, this will cycle through pushing to new heights and backing off to maintenance level for a bit of processing time or to focus elsewhere. For content, the rigour comes in when learning to master a body of information, which quite often we're not because it doesn't matter. 

[Mbelle]

I think sometimes rigor is synomymous for relentlessness.  It's similar to the concept of being consistent in parenting and instead end up being relentlessly a disciplinarian out of fear.

 I try to remember my kids are not solely preparing for a future and the next best thing, but that they are living also just for today and if every today is all plowing through work work work it is worrying to me for the sanity of the kids.   I have to be conscious of this because I tend to set up high expectations, but I hope it's only because I think they can acheive them.   I'm not sure that expectations are tied to rigor, but rather that we work to our ability level instead of lazing in comfort.

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think what I need to do is try to incorporate more discussion into our homeschool. It's hard for me to see discussion as output. I have a prejudice from school that if something wasn't learned from reading a book and isn't written down by a student, that's somehow not real learning.

I have struggled with this as well. A huge part of my motivation for including certain things in our days last school year was to have proof that we had done something. Some of that resulted in really beautiful work that I wouldn’t have anticipated DS being capable of...  but a good chunk of it was a colossal waste of his energy. It was rigor without vitality.

ETA: This year we have done hard things. Incredibly challenging things, that stretched DS in new (& sometimes painful) ways. The difference is, these things have all felt worth it. He has been relieved to complete the things, the way we all are after a difficult task - but he has been proud to complete them, & inspired to possibly circle back to them later. They have stoked his interest, not extinguished it. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Expat_Mama_Shelli

[annegables]

Talking. Lots and lots of talking. Or, as I recently learned, dialectic conversation:). What is rigorous and stifling for my kids (6th grade and under) is producing written work for their ideas. So a super rigorous homeschool would be to force loads of writing. Instead, I require writing (6th grader is going through WWS1), but not too much. For instance, I did informal logic with all the kids last year just by taking a walk every day and talking about logical fallacies. And then I posted a list of the fallacies in our living room. And we talk about them. 

We walk and discuss books. Themes, "should" questions, plot, character development. My kids are able to handle the learning requirement, but often the writing output is too much. So we are doing Argument Builder (6th grader) by half-writing/half-talking. 

 

[annegables]

2 hours ago, HeighHo said:

to me, academic rigor means including details/nuances....and that does challenge many K12 teachers ime.  For example, the disregard of proof and cases in high school geometry these days.  The concept is discussed, but the actual knowing and doing is ultra 'lite' compared to what was demanded and learned in my day. Another example is high school Algebra -- in my day geometrical and symbolic representation were used in the discussion and knowing; today one hardly sees a problem, and its all exercises with friendly numbers, no decimals allowed.

If one rejects rigor but wants to go deep, one might expand complexity or continue one's introductory survey.  

I just wanted to highlight this for a sec because sometimes the thought behind this is to allow for more difficult math, not easier. At least in AoPS (and in my math growing up), the problems were designed to be intellectually challenging, but not require use of a calculator. 

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

13 minutes ago, annegables said:

What is rigorous and stifling for my kids (6th grade and under) is producing written work for their ideas. So a super rigorous homeschool would be to force loads of writing.

It’s funny how individual this is, too.

I was just chatting with DS about the semester that has concluded & the upcoming one. We have done an exceptionally high amount of writing this semester (a play script + a nearly-1000 word narrative) & yet when I asked what he felt was most “worth it” - that was his immediate response! He has loved it! 

For my DS, rigorous and stifling would be assigning copious reading. He has convergence insufficiency, so while he can decode & comprehend at a high level, the physical act is exhausting. It’s far more valuable for him to read a little bit each day, but have the vast majority of things being read to him rather than by him. 

Attempting too many topics at once is another rigorous and stifling pitfall for us. We do best focusing on 4-5 subjects at a time for a month or longer. As much as I see super-short lessons recommended for kids his age, he finds constant switching draining. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Mbelle said:

I think sometimes rigor is synomymous for relentlessness.  It's similar to the concept of being consistent in parenting and instead end up being relentlessly a disciplinarian out of fear.

 I try to remember my kids are not solely preparing for a future and the next best thing, but that they are living also just for today and if every today is all plowing through work work work it is worrying to me for the sanity of the kids.   

Every spring College Confidential is flooded with posts from kids who worked so hard in HS, did all the APs, all the ECs, hours of test prep, and didn't get the elite college admissions they thought they'd earned, and they complain bitterly that their hard work and sacrifice "was all for nothing." Of course there are some kids who take all APs because that is the level they naturally work at and they would be bored with anything less, but IMO the vast majority of kids are just doing it so their GC will check the "most rigorous course load" box on the Common App. For those kids it has nothing to do with wanting a deep meaningful education (which is not what you're going to get in most AP classes anyway), it's more like playing a game of Survivor — if you can endure 4 years of torture you win a prize. And then when they read the admissions threads and see that kids with lower stats, and less rigorous coursework, got accepted to schools that waitlisted or outright rejected them, they are so angry and bitter and disoriented — like they just discovered that the rules of the game they've been playing for the last 4 (or 6 or 12) years were not what they thought, and no one told them. For some kids it really destroys their whole sense of identity, because there was never any internal motivation or love of learning, just a drive for external validation and prizes.

[annegables]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Every spring College Confidential is flooded with posts from kids who worked so hard in HS, did all the APs, all the ECs, hours of test prep, and didn't get the elite college admissions they thought they'd earned, and they complain bitterly that their hard work and sacrifice "was all for nothing." Of course there are some kids who take all APs because that is the level they naturally work at and they would be bored with anything less, but IMO the vast majority of kids are just doing it so their GC will check the "most rigorous course load" box on the Common App. For those kids it has nothing to do with wanting a deep meaningful education (which is not what you're going to get in most AP classes anyway), it's more like playing a game of Survivor — if you can endure 4 years of torture you win a prize. And then when they read the admissions threads and see that kids with lower stats, and less rigorous coursework, got accepted to schools that waitlisted or outright rejected them, they are so angry and bitter and disoriented — like they just discovered that the rules of the game they've been playing for the last 4 (or 6 or 12) years were not what they thought, and no one told them. For some kids it really destroys their whole sense of identity, because there was never any internal motivation or love of learning, just a drive for external validation and prizes.

Yep. That is rigor run amok in my mind. 

 

We have opposite kids! 

14 minutes ago, Expat_Mama_Shelli said:

It’s funny how individual this is, too.

I was just chatting with DS about the semester that has concluded & the upcoming one. We have done an exceptionally high amount of writing this semester (a play script + a nearly-1000 word narrative) & yet when I asked what he felt was most “worth it” - that was his immediate response! He has loved it! 

For my DS, rigorous and stifling would be assigning copious reading. He has convergence insufficiency, so while he can decode & comprehend at a high level, the physical act is exhausting. It’s far more valuable for him to read a little bit each day, but have the vast majority of things being read to him rather than by him. 

Attempting too many topics at once is another rigorous and stifling pitfall for us. We do best focusing on 4-5 subjects at a time for a month or longer. As much as I see super-short lessons recommended for kids his age, he finds constant switching draining. 

 

[Mbelle]

57 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Every spring College Confidential is flooded with posts from kids who worked so hard in HS, did all the APs, all the ECs, hours of test prep, and didn't get the elite college admissions they thought they'd earned, and they complain bitterly that their hard work and sacrifice "was all for nothing." Of course there are some kids who take all APs because that is the level they naturally work at and they would be bored with anything less, but IMO the vast majority of kids are just doing it so their GC will check the "most rigorous course load" box on the Common App. For those kids it has nothing to do with wanting a deep meaningful education (which is not what you're going to get in most AP classes anyway), it's more like playing a game of Survivor — if you can endure 4 years of torture you win a prize. And then when they read the admissions threads and see that kids with lower stats, and less rigorous coursework, got accepted to schools that waitlisted or outright rejected them, they are so angry and bitter and disoriented — like they just discovered that the rules of the game they've been playing for the last 4 (or 6 or 12) years were not what they thought, and no one told them. For some kids it really destroys their whole sense of identity, because there was never any internal motivation or love of learning, just a drive for external validation and prizes.

So much to unpack with all of that. It's heartbreaking in so many ways. 

Someone close to me was a TA at selective college.  They said that the students might be slightly smarter, but for many of them it was all about what is the next big thing and not about a meaningful education.  It was meaningful if they could get a good job at the good company when they graduated.  It's like you say, the motivation is not for learning it's always about the game and prizes.

 

 

[Momto6inIN]

"Rigor" seems intimidating, whereas "vigor" seems exciting and do-able for a mom like me with a regular ole non impressive education.

I want my kids to be challenged regardless of where they are academically. My oldest is gifted and for him, "challenge" looked like AoPS through Calc and teaching himself programming languages and AP tests he self studied for - typical "rigor" as is often described on these boards. 2nd D'S is completely different and for him "challenge" means only (barely) getting through Precalc because he's so busy teaching speech and going to debate tournaments and directing plays. These things are highly motivating to him and he's learning a ton and stretching himself in multiple ways, but his coursework isn't necessarily "rigorous".

[annegables]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

 

As I noted, what's being offered in high schools today  are exercises.  No problems.  They are intellectually challenging....for the student who has many foundational holes and needs whole numbers only.  For the student going on to university who completed the actual K-8 foundation...well that's what afterschooling is for.

I think we might be talking past each other. I do not know what the difference between a math exercise and a math problem is. I dont think I have ever encountered a semantic difference between the two, or at least I didnt realize it:). 

I was just pointing out that for my advanced math classes, we were not allowed to use calculators so the numbers had to be relatively straightforward to work with. The math concept was not in the arithmetic but in the getting from point A to point B over many steps.

[annegables]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

When I pulled my daughter out of school, it was because I realized no school did I wanted. What I wanted was rigor for a few hours a day, and then a ton of playing time. I didn't want busywork. I wanted her to work to demand a lot of her, at the level she was at, and then I wanted it to be done and I wanted her to read/play/build. 

Accordingly, every day, we do an hour of math (we're starting algebra at 7.5! I'm very proud of her), and we're spending about an hour on writing projects she has picked and I insist that she holds her pencil correctly, write neatly, and spell well, and generally stretch herself, and we've started speaking Russian for about half an hour, and she practices piano for 45 minutes... and the rest of the day is mostly up to her. What she chooses to do with that is to read books, and to build, and to attend homeschooling classes at our local homeschooling center (this involves a fair amount of travel time, but she absolutely loves them), and to take swimming and gymnastics classes, and to hang upside down on the playground, and to play with friends. We're mostly unschooling science and history and most other subjects for now.   

This works really well for us. I think it's very rigorous, and yet it's age-appropriate and doesn't involve any busywork. And it also means that she's grateful for our homeschooling. We may be stern with her day-to-day, but she feels like she's progressing in a way that's meaningful for her, and school doesn't feel arbitrary to her.

The bolded represents my approach as well. Go hard for a few hours and then read/play/build. 

[Shoeless]

I think "high output" often masquerades as "rigor" in some education circles. 

I don't require nearly as much written output as many other homeschoolers I know. I know a lot of kids that spend hours every day churning out quizzes, tests, book reports, narrations, lap books, essays, worksheets, and on and on.  The quantity of work the kids produce is impressive and sometimes intimidating. I don't see these kids really engaged with what they are producing, however. There doesn't seem to be any lasting love of the material. They churn out piles of paper evidence of a high quality education, but once "school hours" are over, it's set aside and forgotten until the next scheduled session.  It's nothing more than a pile of stuff to get through each day.

I'm not really interested in that version of rigor because it feels very tedious, IMO. It's very "box-check-y": Do the spelling test, then do your grammar page, then read this chapter, then flip to page 82 and answer the questions, then colour this map, then...ugh. 

Like a previous poster, if we have too many topics to cover in a day, the material feels tedious and like one more thing to slog through. I try to keep our day's studies to 3 topics and we really dig into them.  We study math and language arts topics daily, (we use MCT and rotate through poetry, grammar, and vocabulary).  The third daily topic changes: history, science, art, chess, art history, latin, literature, logic, philosophy. Lately we've been talking a lot about history and listening to the History of English podcast. We've been reading about different artists and spending time in art museums. 

Kiddo cannot write a 5 paragraph essay.  I know a lot of his peers can do that, and there are probably people reading this right now and gasping.  About a million years ago, my 5 paragraph essay on "How to Build a Tree Swing" earned me a spot in a fancy Talented Youth program, (which I flunked out of, because back then the program was a lot of box check-y, high output stuff that I could not care less about.  The director wrote my mother a very polite letter saying perhaps the program wasn't a good fit for me, lol).  Honestly, why would anyone want to read an essay about that?  Why would anyone want to write an essay about that? It's the sort of topic that adults pick for kids to write about because they haven't shown kids anything worth writing about.  Why do we make children write about things no one cares about or wants to read?  What a waste of time! 

My version of a deep, meaningful education is filling my child's day's with lots of really cool things and experiences, so that when he has to write, he'll have knowledge and experience that is worth writing about. 

[8filltheheart]

This is where I cannot relate to homeschooling, or really even parenting, without a philosophy guiding deliberate choices among the whirlwind of daily decisions.

From birth, a goal is self-actualization, not the secularized vision, but being fully who God created them as unique individuals to be.

That means time alone to discover who they are. For a child that means playing using their imagination, and self-guided entertainment that really makes them learn to know themselves. Unstructured hours without adult controlled choices made for them, without adults deciding what they should do, be, like, master.

In terms of education, it simply means helping them achieve what they are capable of achieving. It isnt at 10 they should be able to do this, so do this. It is nurturing them along their unique path. If you know them, you know what they can do easily and what they struggle with. You nurture the one and gently encourage the other. You clear the paths ahead so they can get glimpses of where they can go. It isnt a roadmap. It is a journey, but a journey made one day at a time, one incremental step in mastering whatever skill at a time. 

Nothing glamorous about it. It is just working/nurturing the innate abilities they possess. No path looks the same.

[annegables]

2 hours ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

This is where I cannot relate to homeschooling, or really even parenting, without a philosophy guiding deliberate choices among the whirlwind of daily decisions.

From birth, a goal is self-actualization, not the secularized vision, but being fully who God created them as unique individuals to be.

That means time alone to discover who they are. For a child that means playing using their imagination, and self-guided entertainment that really makes them learn to know themselves. Unstructured hours without adult controlled choices made for them, without adults deciding what they should do, be, like, master.

In terms of education, it simply means helping them achieve what they are capable of achieving. It isnt at 10 they should be able to do this, so do this. It is nurturing them along their unique path. If you know them, you know what they can do easily and what they struggle with. You nurture the one and gently encourage the other. You clear the paths ahead so they can get glimpses of where they can go. It isnt a roadmap. It is a journey, but a journey made one day at a time, one incremental step in mastering whatever skill at a time. 

Nothing glamorous about it. It is just working/nurturing the innate abilities they possess. No path looks the same.

I love just about everything you write. Thank you for all of your contributions to this board. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

The people I know who are into rigor are into rigor for rigor’s sake. I guess that it gives them bragging rights?  And probably is often done out of fear. As 8 said, it takes no consideration of the actual child being taught. It’s online form is often a bunch of oneupmanship. It’s a toxic (in my opinion) game that I don’t want to play. 

[forty-two]

18 hours ago, annegables said:

I think we might be talking past each other. I do not know what the difference between a math exercise and a math problem is. I dont think I have ever encountered a semantic difference between the two, or at least I didnt realize it:). 

I've seen the distinction made before (by someone connected with AOPS iirc).  This article says that it's a common distinction among mathematicians:

Quote

There is a distinction between what may be called a problem and what may be considered an exercise. The latter serves to drill a student in some technique or procedure, and requires little, if any, original thought. Thus, after a student beginning algebra has encountered the quadratic formula, he should undoubtedly be given a set of exercises in the form of specific quadratic equations to be solved by the newly acquired tool. The working of these exercises will help clinch his grasp of the formula and will assure his ability to use the formula. An exercise, then, can always be done with reasonable dispatch and with a minimum of creative thinking. In contrast to an exercise, a problem, if it is a good one for its level, should require thought on the part of the student. The student must devise strategic attacks, some of which may fail, others of which may partially or completely carry him through. He may need to look up some procedure or some associated material in texts, so that he can push his plan through. Having successfully solved a problem, the student should consider it to see if he can devise a different and perhaps better solution. He should look for further deductions, generalizations, applications, and allied results. In short, he should live with the thing for a time, and examine it carefully in all lights. To be suitable, a problem must be such that the student cannot solve it immediately. One does not complain about a problem being too difficult, but rather too easy.

Edited December 23, 2019 by forty-two

[forty-two]

10 minutes ago, mms said:

@forty-two, glad to see you! I remember you from the rigor discussions when our eldests were little. Curious to know what your thoughts are now.

Ha!  As I recall, back in those halcyon days of planning how to educate an ideal child (when I could blithely ignore the nuts & bolts of actually teaching the actual child in front of me), I wanted to combine the great depth of a traditional classical education with a libertarian kind of child-led unschooling (based more on "treating my children as I, the parent, want to be treated" fairness than in a "children flower best when left to choose their own path" romantic view of nature), plus a dash of CM (the lit focus and the general sense of treating children as real persons). 

I was a very philosophically-minded hs'er (still am), and the above were the philosophies that most resonated with me and reflected the beliefs I already held (and, yes, in many ways they *were* rather contradictory beliefs, and that *did* reflect an underlying core conflict).  But there was also a strong "have your cake and eat it too" element - we were going to have all the rigor and depth and also all the effortless child-led joy; all the in-depth math and languages and music and literature and history and science, plus all the time to explore interests and rabbit trails and play outside.  I was in the middle of a years-long depression then, and the gulf between my goals and what I was capable of doing was so vast, and the magic fairy dust of unschooling was going to magically bridge the gap.

Anyway, so three major things happened between then and now:
*the ongoing effort of hs'ing my actual (not ideal) children, using my actual (not ideal) capabilities
*the ongoing effort of building up my actual capabilities through step-by-step consistency (not magic fairy dust)
*a major crisis in belief - I lost confidence in everything I'd believed except faith and family (so both wide-ranging, yet not affecting the *most* core things) - and the ongoing effort of figuring out how *should* one live life (and, therefore, how one should be educated).

I'm not 100% sure how I defined rigor then - probably something like delving as deeply as possibly into the foundational whys (combined with an unstated assumption that such delving would also somehow magically end up achieving all the more "conventional" forms of excellence).  Based on my own experiences as a gifted student, I thought hitting the "usual" things would be trivial, or nearly so, leaving plenty of time for both delving deeper and for individual interests.  And then I ended up with 2E kids, and all the usual things weren't so trivial after all; "doing it all" wasn't going to happen.  And then I lost faith that "conventional excellences" were even worth having at all.  But I also lost faith in my previous reasons for seeking an ever-more-pure traditional classical path.  I'd previously assumed that academic rigor (both in the delving ever-deeper into foundational whys sense and in the achieving academic prowess sense) was a self-evident good, but now nothing to do with living life or educating was self-evident to me anymore.

Anyway, I still very much value delving deeply into foundational whys - everything we do, we do with as much deep understanding as we can manage - but at the same time I'm more modest in how far I think we can realistically get.  (And I'm not as gung-ho on academics as *the* focus of educating for deep understanding of reality.)  I have a *much* greater respect for the importance of consistency now, and have put in a *lot* of effort at building up our consistency.  I really like square25's "depth and consistency"; I always appreciated the depth side, but now I equally value the consistency side.  I now have a greater respect for the practical utility of academic prowess (before I both denigrated it while also assuming it would of course always be there), while still deliberately choosing to not let it drive us - just with a more clear-eyed view of the potential consequences.

I've pretty much rejected unschooling entirely; it's still important to me to treat kids as genuine persons and for adults to not be hypocritical in how they treat kids (and for education to have a whole-life focus), but I don't see the removal of restrictions as the path to human flourishing anymore.  I'm still inspired by traditional classical education, but I've lost that fervent drive for finding The One True Best Classical Approach.  I have a much better sense now how there isn't any "one true classical education"; in the entire history of Christian classical education, at least, people were constantly adapting classical education to fit their view of reality and human life and human nature.  I used to seek out an ever-more-pure classical approach in an effort to *learn* the "one true view of reality and human life and human nature", but I agree with David Hicks - you can't really classically educate without *already* knowing all that.  And *not* knowing all that - and having contradictory notions in what bits I did have - was a factor in my crisis of belief.  Also, I'm more of a religious homeschooler now than I used to be.  I was always religious, but I didn't homeschool for religious reasons; now, after a few years of trying to rebuild from scratch on the foundation of my Christian faith, I do. 

 

IDK, this is getting long and possibly off track.  I've both changed a lot and yet not changed that much on rigor, lol.  Most of the things that were important to me then are still important to me now (with the exception of the libertarian notion of removing restrictions as a path to human flourishing), but many of them are *differently* important.  Education used to take on an almost religious cast for me - it was *the* path to human flourishing - and so my notions of rigor were caught up in that.  Education meant learning to live well, and rigor meant doing the best one could do to learn to live well.  Considering the thread topic, I think my notion of a "rigorous education" was in fact *synonymous* with a "deep, meaningful education", even as I also equated "rigorous education" with "academic education". 

That's where I think the biggest change is.  I used to consider "learn to live well" in predominately academic terms; not necessarily in a conventional sense, but in a "explicitly philosophical" sense.  Now I consider "learn to live well" in predominately *religious* terms, with the academic/philosophical aspect as one of several aspects, not *the* aspect.  I still see rigor/rigorous as striving to do one's best (which is why I've tended to see rigor as a positive term), but I do tend to restrict it as applying to academic/philosophical goals (IDK whether that's the best use of the term or not, but it's the assumption I've tended to make thus far).

So rigor (in the depth sense) used to be a top-level goal of mine, because learning to live well via an academic/philosophical path was a top-level goal of mine.  But now, while learning to live well is still a top-level goal of mine, and seeking a deep understanding of reality is still a top-level goal of mine, the academic/philosophical path is now one of several second-tier goals supporting the top-tier, instead of being the top-tier.  And so seeking rigor - seeking excellence, seeking depth - in academic study is likewise been somewhat downgraded.  It's still important, but it's no longer top-tier important.

[forty-two]

In the interests of full disclosure, no one would judge my homeschool rigorous (in any sense).  I still have the same ideals of academic rigor (in the depth sense) as I used to have, and every year we are closer to them than before (both in depth and, especially, consistency).  I'm really quite proud of the progress we all have made, and quite happy with the current state of our homeschool.  But compared to your average depth-and-consistency rigorously-minded educator, we started way behind the 8-ball.  I was only semi-functional when I started K with my oldest, and it's taken years and years of baby-stepping consistent work to get to this point - a point that is still below what your average well-functioning rigorously-minded educator has been doing all this time.  I think we've achieved a multum non multa sort of semi-rigorous hs - one that I'm proud of, but not one that is objectively rigorous in the usual sense (or in the sense I'd imagined back in the day).

ETA: And, also, though I wish I'd been at my current level wrt capable and functional when I'd started hs'ing, I don't know that I even wish to be objectively rigorous in the usual senses (including my pie-in-the-sky imaginings).  I *like* what we are doing, and I am pretty much academically content with where we are.  But it's not at all what I thought I meant to accomplish a decade ago, kwim?  But in many ways, that's actually a *good* thing.

Edited December 24, 2019 by forty-two

[lewelma]

I love everyone's posts! They are so interesting!  Too bad I'm leaving this conversation to walk around a non-erupting NZ volcano for the next 6 days. 

I believe that 'rigor' has become synonymous with learning that can be assessed. This distorts how students are taught, what courses are offered, and what 'counts' for a transcript. My younger boy has spent 2 years working to improve his leadership skills by choosing activities with younger kids that he can lead from on top, activities with peers that he can lead through influence, activities that require public speaking, and activities that develop his people skills and charisma in general.  Becoming a leader is a goal of his and is directly relevant for his career plan to be a mayor or to work as a geographer to solve complex world problems. Yet, focusing on this squishy skill of charisma and persuasion would never be considered 'rigorous' in any high school curriculum. I believe that this is because it is not objectively testable, and thus is not recognized by adults as a worthy pursuit. 

I also am beginning to wonder if 'rigor' is about immediate rather than long-term recall/comprehension. If you study deeply in a way that content is remembered long term, you cover much *less* content.  This makes your program seem less rigorous. My ds is taking 3 courses each high school year. Not rotating, not block scheduled, just 3 courses. But we are going deep and hard in those 3 subjects. We have looped through calculus 2 times, and are about to go after it a 3rd time.  Chemistry will take 3 years to master.  Geography will be covered over 3 years.  This is kind of a depth vs breath issue, but it is more than that.  Less can be more. Only so much content can be processed and taken into your permanent level of thinking. I think we do students a disservice to assume that just because content has been taught, that it has also be learned.  If you can't recall content or implement a skill a year later, have you learned anything?  

[Shoeless]

10 hours ago, square_25 said:

Thinking about it more, I believe in depth and consistency, whether we call it rigor or not. That actually makes me quite different from most homeschoolers I know in real life, who seem to be mostly very child-led and kind of float through their schooling. I haven’t been impressed with the results.

Yes, I was thinking about this earlier.  I know several homeschoolers who are just sort of floating around, doing nothing in particular. Their schooling is an inch deep and a mile wide. 

I think that is fine for the early years, if your idea is to introduce the kids to a lot of different ideas and activities to see what sticks or where the child's strengths lie.  Show the kids as much of the world as you possibly can, and see what catches their eye. Spend some time on the things that really interest them. 

The inch deep, mile wide education I'm seeing really bugs me. The kids aren't doing anything in particular with their time.  They just sort of drift around and watch YouTube.  

[maize]

6 hours ago, lewelma said:

I love everyone's posts! They are so interesting!  Too bad I'm leaving this conversation to walk around a non-erupting NZ volcano for the next 6 days. 

I believe that 'rigor' has become synonymous with learning that can be assessed. This distorts how students are taught, what courses are offered, and what 'counts' for a transcript. My younger boy has spent 2 years working to improve his leadership skills by choosing activities with younger kids that he can lead from on top, activities with peers that he can lead through influence, activities that require public speaking, and activities that develop his people skills and charisma in general.  Becoming a leader is a goal of his and is directly relevant for his career plan to be a mayor or to work as a geographer to solve complex world problems. Yet, focusing on this squishy skill of charisma and persuasion would never be considered 'rigorous' in any high school curriculum. I believe that this is because it is not objectively testable, and thus is not recognized by adults as a worthy pursuit. 

I also am beginning to wonder if 'rigor' is about immediate rather than long-term recall/comprehension. If you study deeply in a way that content is remembered long term, you cover much *less* content.  This makes your program seem less rigorous. My ds is taking 3 courses each high school year. Not rotating, not block scheduled, just 3 courses. But we are going deep and hard in those 3 subjects. We have looped through calculus 2 times, and are about to go after it a 3rd time.  Chemistry will take 3 years to master.  Geography will be covered over 3 years.  This is kind of a depth vs breath issue, but it is more than that.  Less can be more. Only so much content can be processed and taken into your permanent level of thinking. I think we do students a disservice to assume that just because content has been taught, that it has also be learned.  If you can't recall content or implement a skill a year later, have you learned anything?  

I've been thinking a lot about the three subject course of study--it's so different from what a typical education course looks like in the US.

Thinking about my own education though, some of the years that I learned the most that was actually retained and has been useful over my lifetime were language immersion years--and I really want learning much other than a language during those years.

[Momto6inIN]

7 hours ago, lewelma said:

I love everyone's posts! They are so interesting!  Too bad I'm leaving this conversation to walk around a non-erupting NZ volcano for the next 6 days. 

I believe that 'rigor' has become synonymous with learning that can be assessed. This distorts how students are taught, what courses are offered, and what 'counts' for a transcript. My younger boy has spent 2 years working to improve his leadership skills by choosing activities with younger kids that he can lead from on top, activities with peers that he can lead through influence, activities that require public speaking, and activities that develop his people skills and charisma in general.  Becoming a leader is a goal of his and is directly relevant for his career plan to be a mayor or to work as a geographer to solve complex world problems. Yet, focusing on this squishy skill of charisma and persuasion would never be considered 'rigorous' in any high school curriculum. I believe that this is because it is not objectively testable, and thus is not recognized by adults as a worthy pursuit. 

I also am beginning to wonder if 'rigor' is about immediate rather than long-term recall/comprehension. If you study deeply in a way that content is remembered long term, you cover much *less* content.  This makes your program seem less rigorous. My ds is taking 3 courses each high school year. Not rotating, not block scheduled, just 3 courses. But we are going deep and hard in those 3 subjects. We have looped through calculus 2 times, and are about to go after it a 3rd time.  Chemistry will take 3 years to master.  Geography will be covered over 3 years.  This is kind of a depth vs breath issue, but it is more than that.  Less can be more. Only so much content can be processed and taken into your permanent level of thinking. I think we do students a disservice to assume that just because content has been taught, that it has also be learned.  If you can't recall content or implement a skill a year later, have you learned anything?  

He sounds just like my 2nd DS!

Edited December 24, 2019 by Momto6inIN
Eta have fun traipsing around the volcano- how cool!

[ktgrok]

On 12/22/2019 at 12:20 PM, Little Green Leaves said:

I love the idea of a "vigorous" education!

I think for me, "rigor" means the ability to focus and push through things which are useful in the long run but not terribly exciting in the moment. For example the ability to read a dry theoretical text so that you can later debate it. I think there's rigor in all kinds of things -- like, when I clean behind the fridge I feel like I'm being rigorous. 

I've always struggled with self-discipline  -- I tend to work in fits and starts -- and this is an area where I'd like my kids to do better than me! so I do get a kick out of reading people's "rigorous" home schooling plans. This thread is a nice counter to that, and a great reminder that rigor is also, well, rigid and limiting.

I do want my kids to have discipline and the ability to do not-fun stuff, but I want them to also find joy and vigor in their education. 

I think it is important to be able to push through boring or annoying things to reach a goal. But...I wonder....do we really teach that by forcing kids to do boring stuff in pursuit of a goal they have no interest in anyway? Or do they naturally develop that (perhaps with help) when going after a goal they have set for themselves? We all have to do stuff we don't enjoy but I'd hope that for most of us we do that because it gets us something we do enjoy. If it was for no real purpose we appreciated, we'd try to restructure our lives to change that. So that makes me wonder if it is a skill we can better develop, or maybe I should say habit, not skill, in other areas of daily life where they do see the point of the goal?

On 12/22/2019 at 3:22 PM, Mbelle said:

I think sometimes rigor is synomymous for relentlessness.  It's similar to the concept of being consistent in parenting and instead end up being relentlessly a disciplinarian out of fear.

 I try to remember my kids are not solely preparing for a future and the next best thing, but that they are living also just for today and if every today is all plowing through work work work it is worrying to me for the sanity of the kids.   I have to be conscious of this because I tend to set up high expectations, but I hope it's only because I think they can acheive them.   I'm not sure that expectations are tied to rigor, but rather that we work to our ability level instead of lazing in comfort.

This. So much this. 

Also, what future am I preparing them for if what I've taught them is that life is just doing the next prescribed thing?

[ktgrok]

Having had a kid with difficulties in mental health, and seeing so so so many of my peers that took the IB diploma/selective college/impressive job route have mental breakdowns along the way or once they hit that destination, I'm at the point of totally rejecting the typical view of why education is important. And seeing all these "well educated" politicians with zero ethics has also disillusioned me. Add in consumerism, keeping up with the Joneses, etc etc and yeah......I'm not impressed with being the best if that's the scale we are measured on. 

My goal has become raising good, happy, healthy humans - not education or good jobs or what not. Happy, healthy, good people. That includes a love of learning, curiosity, ability to research, ability to reason and evaluate evidence, and a focus on service to others and self care. 

I also have come to reject the idea that knowing Latin is more profound than knowing what trees and plants grow in your area or how to fix a sink. 

I have no idea where all this will take us. 

[Little Green Leaves]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

I think it is important to be able to push through boring or annoying things to reach a goal. But...I wonder....do we really teach that by forcing kids to do boring stuff in pursuit of a goal they have no interest in anyway? Or do they naturally develop that (perhaps with help) when going after a goal they have set for themselves? We all have to do stuff we don't enjoy but I'd hope that for most of us we do that because it gets us something we do enjoy. If it was for no real purpose we appreciated, we'd try to restructure our lives to change that. So that makes me wonder if it is a skill we can better develop, or maybe I should say habit, not skill, in other areas of daily life where they do see the point of the goal?

This. So much this. 

Also, what future am I preparing them for if what I've taught them is that life is just doing the next prescribed thing?

I think about this a lot too. I guess it depends on what stage we're in, among other things. My kids are little (8 and 6) so at this point, I push them to develop basic skills. Some of it is fun for them - they both love to read and talk about books, for example, and they both love playing with numbers. Some of it is not as much fun for them. They both disliked learning how to write, and my eight year old grumbles about narration. But I think these are valuable skills and I see how they're already paying off, not just in "school" but in other areas. And I try to keep the "pushing" to short lessons so that they have lots and lots of free time too.

I also think (I'm just spitballing here) that working on skills that you find boring can teach you humility. I mean, for example, I was never a very good science student but I'm grateful that my high school required chemistry for all students. I wasn't grateful at the time -- I grumbled and moped and cut class. I still remember my sweet teacher finding me in the hall and yanking me back into the classroom. But looking back, that class taught me to respect different ways of thinking about the world and of processing information. It stretched me.

If I had been left to set my own goals, I would never have done that. I would've stuck to studying poetry and languages because that came naturally to me. So I think part of education, for me, is about personal development and becoming a well-rounded person who can respect different ways of thinking. And I think that leads to a fuller kind of life, even if it doesn't necessarily lead to making lots of money or changing the world.

 

 

 

[mathmarm]

May I ask the context/source of the quote that was shared in the 1st post?  I'm enjoying the theme of these posts. I'm wary that the boards could just be brewing a new pot of BuzzWord stew, but I'm still enjoying the conversation and it's great food for thought for a young homeschooler like myself.

I'm not sure that I "reject " rigor per se, as I always understand rigorous, when used in the context of education, to have the meaning of thorough, sound, steady, solid--all things that I do want for my kids education. Maybe 'rigorous' is better applied to the education received, and not to the process of educating? Also I think that is an important distinction between output and rigor. High output doesn't equate to rigor, nor does rigor equate to high-output.

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Little Green Leaves said:

I think about this a lot too. I guess it depends on what stage we're in, among other things. My kids are little (8 and 6) so at this point, I push them to develop basic skills. Some of it is fun for them - they both love to read and talk about books, for example, and they both love playing with numbers. Some of it is not as much fun for them. They both disliked learning how to write, and my eight year old grumbles about narration. But I think these are valuable skills and I see how they're already paying off, not just in "school" but in other areas. And I try to keep the "pushing" to short lessons so that they have lots and lots of free time too.

I also think (I'm just spitballing here) that working on skills that you find boring can teach you humility. I mean, for example, I was never a very good science student but I'm grateful that my high school required chemistry for all students. I wasn't grateful at the time -- I grumbled and moped and cut class. I still remember my sweet teacher finding me in the hall and yanking me back into the classroom. But looking back, that class taught me to respect different ways of thinking about the world and of processing information. It stretched me.

If I had been left to set my own goals, I would never have done that. I would've stuck to studying poetry and languages because that came naturally to me. So I think part of education, for me, is about personal development and becoming a well-rounded person who can respect different ways of thinking. And I think that leads to a fuller kind of life, even if it doesn't necessarily lead to making lots of money or changing the world.

 

 

 

Ooh. Lots to think on here. You are right that it does help you become a more well-rounded person. Well rounded is definitely something I sick for my kids. And a general literacy. Basic science knowledge would be part of literacy for me. That doesn’t mean being able to do an AP physics class but understanding basic terminology in a way that would allow them to go further if they chose.. Definitely I think on this. I do value work ethic but I don’t value the idea of pushing through just to push through.

[forty-two]

15 minutes ago, mathmarm said:

May I ask the context/source of the quote that was shared in the 1st post?

The quote from Corraleno was from the "What makes the classical approach to LA rigorous?" thread.

Edited December 24, 2019 by forty-two

[smfmommy]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Ooh. Lots to think on here. You are right that it does help you become a more well-rounded person. Well rounded is definitely something I sick for my kids. And a general literacy. 

When my oldest complained about doing the science concepts classes I required (not math heavy at all, not even labs per se) instead of just letting her do more history and writing (her favorites), I told her I wanted her to be interesting at a cocktail party.  And not be embarrassed because she didn't understand basic terminology used in a variety of fields.  I wouldn't call our style rigorous at all, but I am trying to allow my children I have left to really shine in their strengths while still requiring a general literacy.  With my oldest two I think I pushed the general literacy more and didn't encourage/push them to excel in the areas they really loved.  It's a balancing act.

[Shoeless]

15 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I think it is important to be able to push through boring or annoying things to reach a goal. But...I wonder....do we really teach that by forcing kids to do boring stuff in pursuit of a goal they have no interest in anyway? Or do they naturally develop that (perhaps with help) when going after a goal they have set for themselves? We all have to do stuff we don't enjoy but I'd hope that for most of us we do that because it gets us something we do enjoy. If it was for no real purpose we appreciated, we'd try to restructure our lives to change that. So that makes me wonder if it is a skill we can better develop, or maybe I should say habit, not skill, in other areas of daily life where they do see the point of the goal?

 

For me, it depends on what the goal is.  Forcing a kid on a path to being a doctor or concert pianist if they have no interest isn't right, but I don't feel much guilt in insisting that my son learn to write clearly. 

I do think that you can demonstrate the benefits of slogging through the boring bits.  My son has asked me why I clean the house if I don't feel like it.? Why does daddy go to work if he doesn't feel like it? Well, it feels good in the short term to dodge those responsibilities, but doing so causes bigger problems long term.  It's nice to live in a clean house, and it's nice to have plenty of books, toys, and a home to live in, which is what daddy's paycheck provides. Same for exercise.  I don't really ever want to do it, but it benefits me long term, so on to the treadmill I go! 

Edited December 25, 2019 by MissLemon

[ktgrok]

8 hours ago, smfmommy said:

When my oldest complained about doing the science concepts classes I required (not math heavy at all, not even labs per se) instead of just letting her do more history and writing (her favorites), I told her I wanted her to be interesting at a cocktail party.  And not be embarrassed because she didn't understand basic terminology used in a variety of fields.  I wouldn't call our style rigorous at all, but I am trying to allow my children I have left to really shine in their strengths while still requiring a general literacy.  With my oldest two I think I pushed the general literacy more and didn't encourage/push them to excel in the areas they really loved.  It's a balancing act.

I actually used that argument, about not being boring, with my oldest 🙂 I also have talked about how some general literacy keeps one from being taken advantage of by others, be in by politicians, media, etc. 

 

[Rosie_0801]

I also have used the argument about not being boring. That was my daughter's earliest idea of sin, lol.

There was also the time she wanted to learn rhetoric like Julius Caesar, and I explained that memorising and reciting her poem was the little kid version and would build up into giving speeches like Julius Caesar by training her memory. She was pretty happy with that for a long time. 

[LMD]

On 12/25/2019 at 3:18 AM, Little Green Leaves said:

I think about this a lot too. I guess it depends on what stage we're in, among other things. My kids are little (8 and 6) so at this point, I push them to develop basic skills. Some of it is fun for them - they both love to read and talk about books, for example, and they both love playing with numbers. Some of it is not as much fun for them. They both disliked learning how to write, and my eight year old grumbles about narration. But I think these are valuable skills and I see how they're already paying off, not just in "school" but in other areas. And I try to keep the "pushing" to short lessons so that they have lots and lots of free time too.

I also think (I'm just spitballing here) that working on skills that you find boring can teach you humility. I mean, for example, I was never a very good science student but I'm grateful that my high school required chemistry for all students. I wasn't grateful at the time -- I grumbled and moped and cut class. I still remember my sweet teacher finding me in the hall and yanking me back into the classroom. But looking back, that class taught me to respect different ways of thinking about the world and of processing information. It stretched me.

If I had been left to set my own goals, I would never have done that. I would've stuck to studying poetry and languages because that came naturally to me. So I think part of education, for me, is about personal development and becoming a well-rounded person who can respect different ways of thinking. And I think that leads to a fuller kind of life, even if it doesn't necessarily lead to making lots of money or changing the world.

 

 

 

I like what you've said here Little Green Leaves. My children are not the idealised, follow their own interests kids. They do sometimes, but often they stumble when they hit a pebble and need more scaffolding. Maybe the ideal is unrealistic or my understanding of it incorrect, or my parenting style/teaching abilities/family culture lack something to make these super self-propelling kids (probably all of those things! 😉) but I believed - and I've come to believe it was well founded - that for me and my kids, the expanse between my project goal and day to day ability+motivation is vast. They need help, they need pushing, they need a grown up to 'force' them to do, today, what will help them reach their goal next year. One example of this in our homeschool is music. I required music lessons weekly and (more or less) daily practice. They whinged, they couldn't be bothered (neither could I!) There were tears. People asked when I'd let them quit. I replied, when would you let your kids quit maths? When they reach a minimum proficiency in skill level. Now my oldest has 10 years of hard work behind her and she loves having that skill to use. She plays with friends and family and at church, she can easily learn songs she likes, she joined an orchestra, she's considering it as a career option. When her friends hear what level she's now at, they lament about how they didn't stick with their own instruments. I use this as an example in other subjects, I know writing is hard, violin was hard and now you can play beautiful pieces, learning to write well is hard but you can likewise learn a useful and beautiful skill. Music was advantageous in that respect, because it is easy to provide lovely aspiration examples, I try to do the same in all subjects - give not just good, but beautiful models in maths, writing etc.

Okay, I sort of rambled and not sure what my point was, sorry! 😄

[Little Green Leaves]

14 hours ago, LMD said:

I like what you've said here Little Green Leaves. My children are not the idealised, follow their own interests kids. They do sometimes, but often they stumble when they hit a pebble and need more scaffolding. Maybe the ideal is unrealistic or my understanding of it incorrect, or my parenting style/teaching abilities/family culture lack something to make these super self-propelling kids (probably all of those things! 😉) but I believed - and I've come to believe it was well founded - that for me and my kids, the expanse between my project goal and day to day ability+motivation is vast. They need help, they need pushing, they need a grown up to 'force' them to do, today, what will help them reach their goal next year. One example of this in our homeschool is music. I required music lessons weekly and (more or less) daily practice. They whinged, they couldn't be bothered (neither could I!) There were tears. People asked when I'd let them quit. I replied, when would you let your kids quit maths? When they reach a minimum proficiency in skill level. Now my oldest has 10 years of hard work behind her and she loves having that skill to use. She plays with friends and family and at church, she can easily learn songs she likes, she joined an orchestra, she's considering it as a career option. When her friends hear what level she's now at, they lament about how they didn't stick with their own instruments. I use this as an example in other subjects, I know writing is hard, violin was hard and now you can play beautiful pieces, learning to write well is hard but you can likewise learn a useful and beautiful skill. Music was advantageous in that respect, because it is easy to provide lovely aspiration examples, I try to do the same in all subjects - give not just good, but beautiful models in maths, writing etc.

Okay, I sort of rambled and not sure what my point was, sorry! 😄

I love this. It's so encouraging to hear this kind of story. 

I wonder if some people just develop the ability to self-motivate later than others? When I was in high school I was on the track team and I remember feeling grateful that the coach was kind of tough on us. I liked running, but if there hadn't been someone standing there making me do the drills, I would have just gone to buy a slice of pizza or something.It was almost a luxury, having someone external motivate me while I got to grumble.

 Now, as an adult, I still run regularly and have finally learned how to motivate myself, at least most of the time : )

I really like what you said about aspiration examples in all subjects, I'd be interested in hearing more about that!