What are some curriculum trends you’ve noticed over the years?

[Rachel]

On 5/19/2021 at 7:31 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

I used to know all of this so I feel silly asking...but what is "MB?" I googled but I doubt you guys are discussing homeschooling in Manitoba Canada. 🙂 

 

Thank you! I’m a few days behind on this thread, but that’s all that came up for me too. 

[GoodnightMoogle]

1 hour ago, Rachel said:

Thank you! I’m a few days behind on this thread, but that’s all that came up for me too. 

If you didn’t see the replies buried in this thread, it’s Masterbooks.

[Roadrunner]

I am going to look through Dd. Doolittle books. My kids went nuts over them when they were little (something about talking animals and adventure), so I bought all of them and just let them read. Come to think of it most books in this house are read independently. I did make a point of discussing Huck Finn and To Kill the Mockingbird since my boy was a fifth grader when he read those, but now you guys make me a little worried over all the other ones they have plowed through independently.

Now mine is reading Dostoyevsky and my mom keeps telling me he was an anti semite, but I don’t remember these books well enough to hold a discussion. I am counting on his intelligence to recognize the ugly at this point. 

[Clarita]

I think the concern is just if books of a certain era are the only books they read the prejudices may get ingrained in them. If your children read books/literature/stories from different cultures and time periods including more current times I'm sure they realize they shouldn't believe every attitude/belief a book has. Even my 4 and 2 year old had questions about the original Curious George book, because they knew certain attitudes in that story wasn't right.  

[HomeAgain]

5 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I am going to look through Dd. Doolittle books. My kids went nuts over them when they were little (something about talking animals and adventure), so I bought all of them and just let them read.

In the Voyages of Dr. Dolittle, the few chapters have him in Africa, where the little prince Bumpo wants to be white.  We didn't read any of the others, so I can't speak for them.

It's a line that was changed in later versions (late 80s).  I bought an original copy not realizing.  I also made the mistake of reading an original Mary Poppins to my kid.  I opened up the Bad Tuesday chapter, began, and decided, you know, we don't need to finish this book after all.

[stripe]

I had a pre-censored version of Dr Dolittle with the n word in it, but I remember posting about it on this forum, and everyone else was like, “? what are you talking about?” and I finally realized it had been changed.

Here’s a New York Times article about the changes, in 1988,

 https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/28/books/childrens-books-doctor-dolittle-innocent-again.html

which removed chapter 12 entirely (“But you must turn this coon white.”)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Doctor_Dolittle/Chapter_12

Chapter 8 also contains some choice language:

"Go back to that white man at once," she yelled, "and tell him you're sorry. And take all the other empty-headed lions with you—and those stupid leopards and antelopes. Then do everything the Doctor tells you. Work like niggers! And perhaps he will be kind enough to come and see the cub later. Now be off!—Hurry, I tell you! You're not fit to be a father!"

(this has been changed to “work hard!”)

The illustrations of Prince Bumpo were also removed. You can find them in this online version of the stories that seems to contain all the original language.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Hugh_Lofting

@HomeAgain, I had the exact same experience with Mary Poppins. I was shocked.

Edited May 24, 2021 by stripe

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

In the Voyages of Dr. Dolittle, the few chapters have him in Africa, where the little prince Bumpo wants to be white.  We didn't read any of the others, so I can't speak for them.

It's a line that was changed in later versions (late 80s).  I bought an original copy not realizing.  I also made the mistake of reading an original Mary Poppins to my kid.  I opened up the Bad Tuesday chapter, began, and decided, you know, we don't need to finish this book after all.

We’ve read Mary Poppins, but I forget what this one is. What was wrong with it?

[HomeAgain]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

We’ve read Mary Poppins, but I forget what this one is. What was wrong with it?

The chapter has them take a round-the-world trip, with gross characterizations of African, Native American, and Asian people.  It is extremely in-your-face racist. The chapter was dropped (or severely edited?)  from subsequent editions, but I didn't know the difference when I pulled the first edition off our library shelf. 

[Not_a_Number]

15 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

The chapter has them take a round-the-world trip, with gross characterizations of African, Native American, and Asian people.  It is extremely in-your-face racist. The chapter was dropped (or severely edited?)  from subsequent editions, but I didn't know the difference when I pulled the first edition off our library shelf. 

Aah. Yeah, we clearly didn’t have that one.

[Dmmetler]

20 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Right.  It was much more empowering.  

I just put mine in the box to pass on. It was given to me by another long-time homeschooler. It was also how I found this board. 

 

[Roadrunner]

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Aah. Yeah, we clearly didn’t have that one.

Dr aibolit, only apparently super racist. It must have totally gone over my kids’ heads. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

Dr aibolit, only apparently super racist. It must have totally gone over my kids’ heads. 

Huh, interesting! I only vaguely remember it....

 

[Dmmetler]

11 hours ago, stripe said:

I am not sure my kids have met Native American / First Nations people much less an Aboriginal Australian....My husband has a Maori coworker, but I don’t think my kids have met her. No one comes to mind, anyway.

And, of course, unless you've done a great deal of world traveling, when you meet people from other cultures all in the same country, they're also adapting to that culture as well. My teen has an Orthodontist who is originally from South Africa. But my teen is seeing her after she got her dental school degree at Howard and specialization at U. Penn, plus has been practicing for many years. Although my teen does love their conversations about animals.  We've also met a decent number of international herpetologists, and often have heard talks from them, but honestly, the conversation doesn't change much even when the accent does, and conferences kind of have their own culture. (Which doesn't stop me from wanting to go to Malaysia for the next World Congress!). 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Dmmetler

[theelfqueen]

On 5/22/2021 at 10:58 PM, lewelma said:

How about the Teenage Liberation Handbook?  That was a powerful piece of writing by the teens themselves that convinced me to not just homeschool, but to unschool. It was well received in the circles that I ran with all those years ago.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Teenage-Liberation-Handbook-School-Education/dp/1862041040/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_0/130-0647953-6570637?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1862041040&pd_rd_r=56c93457-ea89-418e-996e-d7c8c8e77494&pd_rd_w=fxbzb&pd_rd_wg=F3h3l&pf_rd_p=a0d6e967-6561-454c-84f8-2ce2c92b79a6&pf_rd_r=9RJ07AW0ZFFV7PBDP6GD&psc=1&refRID=9RJ07AW0ZFFV7PBDP6GD

My now 16 year old adores this book and tries to make his friends read it lol

[Eilonwy]

7 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

The chapter has them take a round-the-world trip, with gross characterizations of African, Native American, and Asian people.  It is extremely in-your-face racist. The chapter was dropped (or severely edited?)  from subsequent editions, but I didn't know the difference when I pulled the first edition off our library shelf. 

I’m pretty sure I would not seek out the un-edited version to read to my kids, even as an opportunity to discuss racism with them, and to have them identify it themselves. I don’t know what kind of literary or cultural value Mary Poppins or Dr. Doolittle have, since I haven’t read these two, but it does seem to make the books much more accessible especially for kids who do experience racism frequently in their day to day lives.  
 

This makes me wonder where the boundary is between beneficial and counterproductive publisher or on-the-fly editing of ideas, phrases & chapters that have not stood the test of time.  Is it an age-appropriate issue? Is it often misguided and just trying to stick our heads in the sand? Or is it a small doses for inoculation approach, in order to teach kids at a young age to recognize hurtful ideas when they see them?  Especially as @lewelma noted that fiction was key to work through these ideas with kids.  

Edited May 24, 2021 by Eilonwy

[HomeAgain]

7 minutes ago, Eilonwy said:

 

This makes me wonder where the boundary between either publisher or on-the-fly editing of ideas, phrases & chapters that have not stood the test of time is.  Is it an age-appropriate issue? Is it misguided and just trying to stick our heads in the sand? Or is it a small doses for inoculation approach, in order to teach kids at a young age to recognize hurtful ideas when they see them?  Especially as @lewelma noted that fiction was key to work through these ideas with kids.  

Such a murky area, it's hard to know what the boundary is.  P.L. Travers was responsible for editing Bad Tuesday after a deluge of complaints, but Peter Pan remains as it is, and I can appreciate that future owners of his work (the London Children's Hospital?) have left it alone - but that also doesn't mean I have to read it to children who may absorb the same ideas because they're not exposed to enough other perspectives yet or can think critically.

Everything has to be in context in a greater picture.  It's okay to point out that the author was working from a limited scope at a time when the information wasn't readily available to those who didn't seek it out.  If they didn't know any Native Americans in person, then they may not even be able to understand their culture or be willing to empathize, instead treating them like curiosities. For example, when Verne wrote about the Sioux attacking the train, he was relying on other people's perspectives and ideas about the Sioux, and of course their opinions helped to form his.  Is it true? Right? Something still believed?  When a kid is ready to discuss these questions, they're ready for more early children's literature, IMO.

[Eilonwy]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

Everything has to be in context in a greater picture.  It's okay to point out that the author was working from a limited scope at a time when the information wasn't readily available to those who didn't seek it out.  If they didn't know any Native Americans in person, then they may not even be able to understand their culture or be willing to empathize, instead treating them like curiosities. For example, when Verne wrote about the Sioux attacking the train, he was relying on other people's perspectives and ideas about the Sioux, and of course their opinions helped to form his.  Is it true? Right? Something still believed?  When a kid is ready to discuss these questions, they're ready for more early children's literature, IMO.

Good points, thanks for posting this.  It is quite situation-specific, which would tend to point away from a clear boundary line between “good” and “bad” edits to books.  

It’s an interesting contrast to the false distinction between modern and old education in the tweet shown by @Ordinary Shoes, where it all sounds so clear-cut and simple, and then actually is so much more complicated, even to the point of making the statement meaningless. 

[lewelma]

2 hours ago, Eilonwy said:

Or is it a small doses for inoculation approach, in order to teach kids at a young age to recognize hurtful ideas when they see them?  Especially as @lewelma noted that fiction was key to work through these ideas with kids.  

Well there was some boundary for me.  I actually threw Dr Doolittle in the trash. 

[stripe]

8 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

And, of course, unless you've done a great deal of world traveling, when you meet people from other cultures all in the same country, they're also adapting to that culture as well. 

Sure, it’s always a mistake to extrapolate from one person to an entire culture.

[Not_a_Number]

34 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Well there was some boundary for me.  I actually threw Dr Doolittle in the trash. 

Wow. That bad, eh? 😄 

[stripe]

My kids had a chapter (their favorite, as it turns out) of Dr Dolittle in a Childcraft volume. So that one is remembered fondly, whereas they never saw the book! 

I bought Agatha Christie’s Ten Little N***s as a historical curiosity plus my desire to get it out of circulation.

I don’t have an issue with needing to artificially seek out racism in order to lecture my kids about it, especially when people are directing that prejudice at you, your children, or your culture personally. One of my kids, who for some reason has been on the receiving end of more than the others have, has been astonished — gobsmacked! — at what idiotic things people have said to her, which display a tremendous ignorance at best, and she didn’t need me to show up to provide input about it in order to respond.

[GracieJane]

4 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I mentioned in one of my posts on this thread how "classical" educators like Circe romanticize the past. I think, althoughI know others will disagree, that when you look deeper at what many of these people claim you will realize that it has no substance. I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about neoclassical educators like SWB. 

I saw this tweet today and it reminded me of what I was getting at. What does this even mean? Some people look at something like this and believe it's profound. But honestly, what does it mean? Is it grounded in a realistic understanding of the past? 

 

This is the kind of meaningless pablum that is peddled to homeschoolers. But what does "old education" mean? Does he understand that there is no such thing as "old education" TM? What does he mean by "modern education?" 

So guys like this (and they are almost always guys) throw out something like this and the nice, well-meaning homeschooling mom thinks, "yes, I want to be concerned about my child's soul. Doesn't it sound nice?" She then follows up with questions about how to actually provide "old education." Then things go off the rails because these guys don't even know what "old education" is so how can they give specific advice. Besides, of course, buy my book or my curricula. Or, "read these old books that the liberals are trying to cancel." Many of them seem completely ignorant of the revolutionary nature of the novel, in and of itself. So, "read these old books" isn't really "old education." 

This is about grievance politics, not educational philosophy. 

Homeschoolers seem to hit a wall trying to follow this because eventually you need something concrete. 

I can’t even get started with the Circe guys. It is like they are allergic to concrete implementation. And the condescension of “reaching” the mothers with their petty concerns and uncooperative children...

[Clarita]

4 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

But what does "old education" mean? Does he understand that there is no such thing as "old education" TM? What does he mean by "modern education?" 

When I first started learning about classical homeschooling I was so confused. I made the mistake of bringing my analytical brain into the conversation and asked about the exact time period of said old traditional classical education - (ancient Rome, ancient Greek, Renaissance, or 1930's America).  

[GracieJane]

Oh and let us not forget the Great Books; there was a period of handwringing over whether or not homeschooling parents were Qualified To Teach their six year olds if they had not read Sophocles or the entire Shakespeare canon.

Edited May 24, 2021 by GracieJane

[GracieJane]

21 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

All of this finally made sense to me when I read Cindy Rollins and Angelia Stanford's stories. These guys have no idea what they are doing. They were threatened by women who saw through them. 

I don’t think it’s that malicious. I got my BFA and took Performance Art classes which means my threshold for meaningless prattle is high. My sense is that these people had aspirations of becoming distinguished as intellectuals but had not the qualifications necessary to teach in higher Ed, so instead they accepted the second-best: lecturing adoring mothers, those unfortunate simpletons who wash dishes and trade Virtue TM for impractical nonsense like long division.

Edited May 24, 2021 by GracieJane

[GoodnightMoogle]

1 hour ago, GracieJane said:

I can’t even get started with the Circe guys. It is like they are allergic to concrete implementation. And the condescension of “reaching” the mothers with their petty concerns and uncooperative children...

Listening to some of their podcasts drives me nuts. They claim to teach logic and rhetoric to produce some kind of elite speakers and then they themselves can’t even answer a question or stay on topic without talking in a boring circle about nothing for twenty minutes. I’m not a Charlotte Mason purest but at least on podcasts like “A Delectable Education,” the ladies there actually answer questions, give concrete examples and “gasp” can speak coherently!

I think I’m thinking of Andrew Kern. Man, that guy likes to hear himself talk. Still waiting to hear from one of these “masters of rhetoric.” 

Also, if “old education” (what a nonsensical oversimplification) was so great, where are all the paragons of wisdom and virtue it supposedly produced? I value many Classical and neo-classical ideas but that education isn’t God. It certainly never saved anyone’s civilization. (Yes, Rome and Greece, shots fired). 

[stripe]

One of those guys said Margaret Atwood can’t write a complete sentence. I can’t figure out who said it or find it again, but that’s ridiculous. You may dislike her politics or her books, but illiterate she is not.

[Terabith]

My kids LOVED the Doctor Doolittle books.  I think we read all of the sequels.  But I remember being very glad that neither of them were fluent readers when I read them aloud because I edited soooooo much.  And there were many, many discussions about colonialism and racism.  They were 4 and 5 at the time.  

I'm super glad they didn't come across them on their own.  

My youngest loved stories so much, and even though I read aloud for like 3 or 4 hours a day, she spent another 3 or so hours listening to audiobooks every day.  I had to be really careful about which titles from librivox I could curate.  

[stripe]

I found this Circe blog post reflecting on old (1970s) children’s books

https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/why-we-need-frog-and-toad-more-ever

Not every children’s book from these decades involved the same kind of lesson-learning, but a great many did. The formula was quite simple:

A happy child encounters some moral or material problem.

The child does not believe he can conquer the problem and becomes unhappy.

Parents and friends help the child conquer the problem and the child is happy again.

....However, children’s books have become increasingly squeamish when it comes to addressing genuine human problems, let alone the idea that vice must be painfully overcome through virtue. In the 1970s, a girl named Tina in a children’s book might be afraid to learn to ride a bike, then slowly learn with the help of her mother and friends. Today, the same book does not involve Tina learning anything, but is simply 1) a celebration of the fact Tina can already ride a bike or 2) a celebration of the fact Tina could learn to ride a bike if she so chose or 3) a celebration of the fact that while Tina cannot ride a bike, she can do 50 other interesting things. 

 

[stripe]

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

These authors are more complicated than they think and the reasons that these books are good and worth reading is that they see children as people not things that need to be taught virtue TM. (Sorry rambling...)

 

Yes, not to mention that Arnold Lobel died of AIDS and was gay. 

What I see Lobel’s books as genius at (including Grasshopper on the Road) is pointing out pomposity and the stupidity of blindly following rules. So I love Frog and Toad for different reasons entirely. 

[Penelope]

That whole post reminds me why I stopped reading anything from Circe a few years ago. A few mostly-true things, wrapped up in a bunch of other stuff that seems arrogant and oversimplified. I wonder who they are reaching these days. 

[stripe]

18 minutes ago, Penelope said:

That whole post reminds me why I stopped reading anything from Circe a few years ago. A few mostly-true things, wrapped up in a bunch of other stuff that seems arrogant and oversimplified. I wonder who they are reaching these days. 

I think there’s always an audience of people who like to make fun of others. I used to know quite a lot of such superior people in real life, and they made me just exhausted. Not surprisingly, a lot of them have crashed and burned. But I feel like there’s a real tendency to go for this approach.

 

ETA This hilarity:

“Many marriages last because husband and wife have something significant to lose if the marriage falls apart. Likewise, a high school sophomore who wants to date a girl should have something significant to lose if the relationship does not last. I would suggest a thousand dollars. Before being allowed to date a certain young woman, her suitor should approach the young woman’s father and give him a thousand dollars in cash. If the couple remain in a dating relationship for one full year, the young man can have half the money back. If the couple can last eighteen months, the young man may have the rest of his money back. In the meantime, if the couple breaks up for any reason, the young woman keeps all the money.”

https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/guide-dating-high-school

I thought the money was for the girl. Now it’s for her dad.

Edited May 25, 2021 by stripe

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Some of these classic children's book authors are so much complex than they give them credit for being. Lobel is more than a a teacher of virtue TM. I don't think he thought of his books in the reductionist way that these virtue peddlers (not just the Circe folks) do. I read No Pretty Pictures by his wife a few years ago. What an amazing book! I still think about it years later. These authors are more complicated than they think and the reasons that these books are good and worth reading is that they see children as people not things that need to be taught virtue TM. (Sorry rambling...)

I love Lobel. And I really don't think of those books as simple-mindedly moralistic!! I mean, even thinking about one of the stories explicitly mentioned in that article... despite all their attempts at willpower, Frog and Toad are unable to stop eating the cookies and are forced to give them away to the birds. 

And then one of them stalks off to bake a cake 😂. As a morality tale, it's pretty darn dubious. As an actual story, it's great! 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

56 minutes ago, stripe said:

What I see Lobel’s books as genius at (including Grasshopper on the Road) is pointing out pomposity and the stupidity of blindly following rules. So I love Frog and Toad for different reasons entirely. 

I absolutely adore Grasshopper on the Road. My kids don't like it as much, I think, but it's a truly wise book. 

[daijobu]

4 hours ago, stripe said:

ETA This hilarity:

“Many marriages last because husband and wife have something significant to lose if the marriage falls apart. Likewise, a high school sophomore who wants to date a girl should have something significant to lose if the relationship does not last. I would suggest a thousand dollars. Before being allowed to date a certain young woman, her suitor should approach the young woman’s father and give him a thousand dollars in cash. If the couple remain in a dating relationship for one full year, the young man can have half the money back. If the couple can last eighteen months, the young man may have the rest of his money back. In the meantime, if the couple breaks up for any reason, the young woman keeps all the money.”

https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/guide-dating-high-school

I thought the money was for the girl. Now it’s for her dad.

Wow.

This reminds me of the approach taken by Zappos, where they pay their employees thousands of dollars to quit. 

The equivalent is dad (where's mom?) paying some teenager to stop dating the son/daughter.  If s/he takes the money, you know they're no good.  

[Clarita]

7 hours ago, stripe said:

“Many marriages last because husband and wife have something significant to lose if the marriage falls apart. Likewise, a high school sophomore who wants to date a girl should have something significant to lose if the relationship does not last. I would suggest a thousand dollars.

I'm sorry they are in HIGH SCHOOL. I would much rather some high school boy thinking my daughter (also in high school) is cute go on one date with her (where they do some innocent thing like go to a movie maybe have dinner) at which point go whoa we are not meant to be and move on. Rather than have my daughter be stuck with some "playa" because he feels some monetary obligation to date her for a year.  Anyways a "player's gonna play" if he's dating your daughter for a year you can bet he's cheating on her. 

Not to mention that the dating should be a mutual decision, not just a decision between a boy and a girl's father.

There is so much wrong with that quote. 

[Eilonwy]

8 hours ago, stripe said:

Yes, not to mention that Arnold Lobel died of AIDS and was gay. 

What I see Lobel’s books as genius at (including Grasshopper on the Road) is pointing out pomposity and the stupidity of blindly following rules. So I love Frog and Toad for different reasons entirely. 

I had never heard about his life. I absolutely love the Frog and Toad books, and it’s not the morality lessons, it’s the beguiling way they are told.  
 

Margaret Atwood has some good (though very different in style) children’s books that I also quite enjoy.

[Hunter]

Interesting thread. When I started homeschooling in the 90's I thought there was a LOT of curricula. I couldn't afford most of it. It seemed like a lot to me, and it still does.

I like to read old teachers manuals from the 1700's and 1800's and all of the 1900's through today. And even what the ancients wrote about teaching: Quintilian is interesting reading, especially the controversy about whether education should start at age 6 or 7.

Nature schooling is just rewritten Waldorf with the gnomes taken out, and Waldorf is just earlier methods with the gnomes added in. Waldorf's discussion of whether school should start at 6 or 7 is at least as old as the Roman empire. Chalkboard, form-drawing, grain rotations, color theory: none of that was invented by Waldorf.

Charlotte Mason may have written some nonsense about having a dream, but I think she just dreamed some stuff that she had already read, because I can find older teacher manuals that includes every one of her "new" ideas.

The Principle approach was popular in the 90's. Far Above Rubies and Blessed is the Man were unit study curricula for teenagers. A LOT of people used American School Correspondence School for High school. It is still in business, but not the same at all. Digging up Robinson Curriculum threads is fun. LOL. Ruth Beechick, Mott Media, and Alpha Phonics were popular.

Not everyone started with Abeka and BJU. They were expensive and refused to sell parents the TMs in the early days.

People spent less money and less time and moms had less background education. I have never seen a study that shows homeschooling is more successful now than then.

I have been around and around with my opinions of old books over the decades. Firstly, it is a BIG deal to me that they are copyright free. And secondly, the youth of any culture that completely ignore the advice and writings of the older generation, and only value the ideas of their young peers, make a fool of themselves.

In the early 2000's, there was a single college textbook on the progymnasmata that is the foundation of all the later more expensive yearly progym workbooks. Around 2000, all the single books seemed to multiply like the Tribbles in Star Trek.

I don't think we are doing better or are better than we were, despite all the time and money being spent, and despite how enlightened we believe ourselves to be. I think we are just too blind to see our faults, and I think part of that is a result of too much time immersed in the culture and ideas of our age peers and what they write.

I have begun to embrace some older authors that I would have discarded years ago. I do not agree with everything they say and I cringe and even cry at some of it. But I take what the Bible says seriously, about taking the time to listen to my elders. I have adopted some authors and speakers as my adopted grandparents. When I listen to them go astray, I feel fear that in the years to come, what I am saying now will be seen for what it is: mess, mess, and more mess.

We are human. Humans are messy. The more "advanced" and "enlightened" we get, the more our mess multiples exponentially. Like Tribbles.

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Hunter

[smfmommy]

7 hours ago, Hunter said:

I have begun to embrace some older authors that I would have discarded years ago.

I'd love to see your list of favorite older authors. 

Thanks for chiming in, I always appreciate your point of view.

[Hunter]

I spent some time last winter taking some seminary classes and learning about seminary style academic writing. There are as many parallel prejudices in academic vs lay studies as there is among traditional schooling vs homeschooling. People that use older resources are accused of using "folk theology". People using readily available public domain resources are accused of using "devotional resources" and wikipedia is mocked and forbidden in many forum conversations. People are not allowed to contribute to the forum conversations unless they cite "appropriate" resources, which are only accessible to the rich and connected.

Vernon McGee is a mess. LOL. But he is mine. I claim that man as my spiritual grandfather, including the worst of his mess. I have his complete Thru the Bible radio series on a solar powered player, and when the power surges are rippling through the neighborhood and I need to keep everything unplugged, I lay in the dark and listen to him.

I really liked taking sociology class in college. When we can participate in multiple cultures and observe the patterns of how humans behave, we see each individual culture more clearly.

It is not so much which older homeschool and literature writers that we each claim as our own, but more the attitude. We must teach our children to trust their elders and seek their wisdom. We must teach our children humility as they listen to mess, instead of arrogance. 

A culture that is taught to hate their elders is a culture that will cease to exist.

[happypamama]

I just wanted to say that it's really nice to see you, Hunter!!

[lewelma]

Robinson Curriculum threads is fun. LOL. Ruth Beechick, 

On 5/27/2021 at 5:23 PM, Hunter said:

Robinson Curriculum threads is fun. LOL.

Ruth Beechick, 

Oh yes, I forgot about those! Simplicity at its heart.  I think that today's offerings are the complete antithesis of these early ideas. Teach your kids -- you don't need content, materials, curriculum, equipment, electronics, workbooks, etc. All you need is books, paper, and a parent to actually teach and mentor. 

[Hunter]

On 5/29/2021 at 1:59 PM, lewelma said:

Robinson Curriculum threads is fun. LOL. Ruth Beechick, 

Oh yes, I forgot about those! Simplicity at its heart.  I think that today's offerings are the complete antithesis of these early ideas. Teach your kids -- you don't need content, materials, curriculum, equipment, electronics, workbooks, etc. All you need is books, paper, and a parent to actually teach and mentor. 

Nothing is simple or cheap anymore and I have yet to see a study that says homeschooling has become more effective. Some of us need to decide if the changes have been worth it and if all of us want to continue this way. Sometimes more effort and money doesn't get us more results. We need to stop and evaluate.

What changed?

Why did it change?

What have been the results of these changes?

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Hunter said:

Nothing is simple or cheap anymore and I have yet to see a study that says homeschooling has become more effective. Some of us need to decide if the changes have been worth it and if all of us want to continue this way. Sometimes more effort and money doesn't get us more results. We need to stop and evaluate.

What changed?

Why did it change?

What have been the results of these changes?

I dunno if anything changed but the population. Homeschooling is more mainstream now. When the people doing something change, the preferences of the group change. 

Me, I DIY everything. I'm an anachronism, I think 😉 . 

[Clarita]

17 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm pretty unimpressed when I look at the homeschooled kids we know. Most of these kids aren't doing much academics. And honestly, I don't think we did that great of a job either. 

What do you think the problem was? This fall my eldest will start TK. We are super early in the journey and I am homeschooling for academic reasons. (Public school in our area is not good. We do have the option of private school, but it would be nice to save that money for something more fun.) 

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm pretty unimpressed when I look at the homeschooled kids we know.

I'm very curious about what we'll see long-term. I'm not that impressed with most homeschoolers I know, either, but then I'm not impressed with most kids I know that go to school. Realistically, maybe it's unreasonable to expect an excellent, meaningful, thoughtful education out of either environment. Exceptional things won't be attained on average. We aren't in Lake Wobegon. 

[freesia]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think there are several reasons why things changed but one is that families began homeschooling for academic reasons instead of religious reasons. Academic homeschoolers don't see public schools as off limits so homeschooling has to be justified as an alternative. Look at the thread below about a homeschooling family that isn't doing anything academic. School isn't an option for that family because of religion. 

And as homeschooling spread to less religious families, the lives of the mothers were different. These mothers were more likely to work outside or inside the home so had more disposable income and less time. 

But my question is whether the homeschooling movement in general was good or bad. I'm sure there are children who did better at home than in school but I also can't deny that there are probably many other kids who should have been in school. I'm pretty unimpressed when I look at the homeschooled kids we know. Most of these kids aren't doing much academics. And honestly, I don't think we did that great of a job either. 

I had a discussion with a few other homeschooling mothers recently. There was also a woman who was pregnant with her first baby. She plans on homeschooling. All of the homeschooling mothers, including me, were planning on putting our kids in school eventually. 

My experience is very different. The homeschoolers around me are being diligent about providing good rich educations to their children. Homeschooling is hard, it’s true and I am less idealistic about it now than I was. However several women who sent their children through the schools here ( good schools) recently confided in me that if they had it to do over, they would homeschool. 

I am sorry your experience wasn’t good.  It is good you were able to make a change that worked for all of you. 

[Clarita]

24 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

What is TK?

Extra kindergarten for kids born between Sept. - Dec. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm not that impressed with the kids from school either but those kids are getting an education. There is a schedule. They are learning math and reading. It's not the greatest but at least they are learning something. 

In contrast, I know multiple homeschooling families that aren't doing math at all. One mother told me that she'd decided that kids aren't developmentally capable of doing math until adolescence. 

We already have long term results and they're not great although the long term results are from religious homeschoolers. 

On the one hand, I also know kids who aren't doing math at all, and I feel pretty disquieted by that.

On the other hand, I've talked to some kids who "do math" in school, and let's just say that it's not obvious to me that it's better than not doing any math. School math has a way of knocking all the sense out of kids. 

 

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't think my DD ever produced her best work with me because I was her mother. I'm very happy about some aspects of our homeschooling but there were struggles. 

Now THIS is definitely a real thing. I'm an academically demanding person, but we've definitely had to deal with the fact that working for one's parent doesn't always come naturally to kids... something about the psychology of it doesn't work as well. 

In our case, though, it's definitely offset by the fact that DD8 is very accelerated and no one was ever going to accelerate her like that in school. So I'm certainly not sorry. 

[Kakids]

Not all kids in public school are given math. “Special education” is code for nothing in too many situations.