Do you think that a certain curriculum makes a child "smarter"....

[paulcindy]

When you think about curriuclum, do you think that if Family A used one curriculum for the same aged child, and Family B used a totally different curriculum for the same aged child, would one child be "smarter", "better", or better "educated" then the other?

 

Is it the curriculum that makes the child?

Or is the child's persona, willingness to learn, the parents time and knowledge passed on to the child?

 

If Family A uses say, the WTM method of classical education, would that child be "better educated" then if Family B chose to use a completely independent curriculum such as ACE, LIFEPACS, or CLE?

 

If one chose to use IEW for writing, and the other chose a Writing Program built into a complete LA program such as CLE, or R+S, would the IEW student be a better writer??

 

I was pondering these things. What do ya'll think? Am I making sense?

[3browneyedboys4me]

I'm inclined to think maybe the 'style' makes for the brighter child b/c isn't it the method that we teach that enables them to learn? In other words, the curriculum makes it 'easier', but if we don't expose them to certain things, they simply won't learn it. Unless, they are VERY eager, independent learners! I guess that's why I was always attracted to the Classical style or method of schooling.

 

I look forward to reading some of the answers. :001_smile:

[Carmen_and_Company]

It depends on the parent's teaching style and involvement, and the child's natural aptitude. I recall the Colfax family's children were the first homeschoolers to attend IVY league schools well before TWTM, IEW, or progym writing programs back in the early 90's. So, I do not think a specific curricula increases or produces smarter children; however, methodology, parent-child relationship along with temperament, and a lot of sweat & possible tears do play a major role.

[nmoira]

I think to some degree it's like preparing for a journey and fretting about whether this leg or that will be by airplane, or train, or taxi, or walking. We're going on a journey, not hammering in a nail. I don't think it's productive or healthy to look at curriculum choices in terms of this or that making a child, but it's terribly easy to get caught up in the frenzy. That said, it's absolutely true that some programs are a better fit than others for a particular child. That's what's wonderful about this site, we can read about the experience of others who have children who remind us of our own. FWIW, I am far more worried about my child being engaged with the materials we use than about whether they represent the most efficient programs available. It's the desire to learn we want to cultivate.

[dragons in the flower bed]

When you think about curriuclum, do you think that if Family A used one curriculum for the same aged child, and Family B used a totally different curriculum for the same aged child, would one child be "smarter", "better", or better "educated" then the other?

 

Neuroscience is bearing out what educators have said for millenia -- foreign language study, music study, and mathematics study all increase a person's raw capacity for and speed of thought. So, yes, I believe a child who studies those three things will be better able to think than he would have been, had he not.

 

Is it the curriculum that makes the child?

Or is the child's persona, willingness to learn, the parents time and knowledge passed on to the child?

 

It is most certainly both, plus several other factors.

 

 

If Family A uses say, the WTM method of classical education, would that child be "better educated" then if Family B chose to use a completely independent curriculum such as ACE, LIFEPACS, or CLE?

 

Everyone starts at a different intelligence baseline. If Family B's starting out significantly marter than Family A, there may not be any way for Family A to catch up.

 

But if we compare Family A with WTM and Family A with Lifepacs, I'd still say I don't know. My impression that intelligence can be added is based entirely on biology and what scientists have revealed about the way the brain works, and I haven't seen much that says grammar and history oil the thought canals. I would place my bets that Family A with a math, music and Latin-based program like the first LCC book recommends would end up with kids with more raw intelligence capacity than Family A would if they used Lifepacs.

 

If one chose to use IEW for writing, and the other chose a Writing Program built into a complete LA program such as CLE, or R+S, would the IEW student be a better writer??

 

No studies are out on that yet. :D I believe it's possible that one method of learning to write objectively creates better writers, even when the results are controlled for parental level of education and other environmental and biological factors. We learned from a study done in the nineties (that I frequently hesitate to mention because I can't cite it properly) that homeschooling creates more successful kids even when results are controlled for parental level of education and other environmental and biological factors.

 

I believe we're a long way from discovering what writing method, if there is one, is better.

 

I was pondering these things. What do ya'll think? Am I making sense?

 

What had you in a pondering mood?

[chiguirre]

Smarter? No. Better educated? Yes, but simply because they'll be exposed to more topics and something will strike a spark with them. I think it's quite possible that an unschooler might be even better educated than a WTMer in the long run if their natural curiosity is encouraged. OTOH, someone who uses a drill and kill curriculum might well score better on standardized tests and appear "smarter". Clear as mud?

[paulcindy]

What had you in a pondering mood?

 

 

In general, people discussing various curriculum methods, and it had me curious. It is interesting reading all the discussions and replies:)

[paulcindy]

Smarter? No. Better educated? Yes, but simply because they'll be exposed to more topics and something will strike a spark with them. I think it's quite possible that an unschooler might be even better educated than a WTMer in the long run if their natural curiosity is encouraged. OTOH, someone who uses a drill and kill curriculum might well score better on standardized tests and appear "smarter". Clear as mud?

 

Yes. But here is another thought. You have two women having a conversation in a room at a party. Women A starts talking as a well educated, well-versed, well rounded individual. She speaks clearly and intelligently. Woman B cannot understand a word she is saying. Nor can she carry on an intelligent conversation.

 

Both graduated only from homeschool high school.

 

Why would there be such a difference?

[chiguirre]

IMHO, they probably come from very different families. Family A read a lot and discussed ideas with their children. Family B quite possibly didn't own any books except for their hs stuff and just wanted to get the bare minimum covered. The same thing happens with ps families, too. OTOH, woman B might also have an intellectual disability or a serious LD.

[nmoira]

 

OTOH, woman B might also have an intellectual disability or a serious LD.

Or woman B might live and breathe molecular biology and be searching for a cure for cancer, and not give a whit about great books or politics.

[chiguirre]

:iagree: with Moira. There can be a lot of explanations for the differences and some of them might be very surprising to a casual observer.

[Pongo]

Opps, I didn't see this post, I posted in the other one:)

 

I cut and pasted from that one:

 

Great questions.

 

Well, personally I feel it is many factors, including the child, finances,curriculum, teaching philosophy, and confidence of the parent. I would add to this; family dynamics, learning style, diet & exercise as well as environmental issues. This is by no means is an exhaustive list but, it includes some things that I think can sway one way or the other in determining a child's academic success.

 

With that said, I have known through my co-op, many families that taught from many different philosophies, with different types of kids, and they used a plethora of teaching tools. The one thing that I found to be an , across the board issue was, consistency. I think one of the greatest advantages to homeschooling is also one of it's greatest disadvantages. With a gazillion math, language arts, theories, and philosophies. It makes curricula hopping easy, and I have done it myself;). I think that in itself, can be the downfall for many kids. Some kids reach grade 6 in the homeschooling environment and they have never had a basal program for what I consider fundamental classes. Every LA to math program had been used and they are still floundering.

 

I don't feel that way about History ( I know some will) and Science(I think curricula flexibility is actually good here) because I really feel like everyone starts at the same place in college for the most part with History and Science. And since I am a firm believer that math should drive your science you can, and really should only go as far as math allows , so again the importance of math.

 

I have seen kids where LA and Math have not been consistent, not just the curriculum but the method and it can really put a child at a disadvantage.

 

When I found what worked in Math and LA, I stuck with it, I may have added resources or supplements but the basal program stayed the same. The advantage is, with each year I taught is better, could add or take away from it easier for each individual child.

 

When I came to this board and started talking about my dd that was gifted in math (5-6 years ago) I received some very good advice. I believe it was Myrtle that suggested learning and actually doing math courses ahead of her. I realize this is not possible for everyone, but for me at the time, it was. So I did, and it was the best thing I ever did. As a nurse you are taught to watch the procedure, do the procedure and then teach the procedure and when it came to math I knew I would fall short. Where I once thought I would have to outsource Algebra I now know I am okay until Calculus( I am registering for an online class for Calc. this summer, and I am NOT looking forward to it:glare:)

 

This is my own experience and unproven insights:) I am not implying to anyone that they have mis-handled their child's education. I am truly only accountable to MY kids education and these are the methods the work well for us.

 

I am looking forward to other responses:D

Edited March 30, 2009 by Pongo

[HiddenJewel]

I think the program that teaches a student how to think is the program that will make him/her "smarter."

[bugs]

I do believe there are some curriculums/schools/parents/teachers that spoon feed kids and ask for very little independent thought or initiative from the student. So I think it's important that your curriculum (and you) teach a child to think. On the other hand, I do believe there are multiple intelligences and each child is gifted in at least one (though it may not be "academic").

[angela in ohio]

I think that whether a child is well-educated depends on about:

 

60 % family attitude toward education/ home environment in general

20 % parental involvement and commitment to homeschooling specifically

20 % materials used

 

JMHO

 

I think the *method* used is a big factor, and I would consider that as being mixed into the first and last categories.

[paulcindy]

These are very intereting responses. I am enjoying reading them.

 

The consistency in Math and LA, was a good point. This is where I have fallen short. Is it ever to late to start connsistency?

 

We have bounced every year from one LA and Math to another. Now we are grade 5/6ish, we need to buckle down.

[Avila]

Different people have different gifts, so I think it is hard to really compare apples to apples here. Sometimes something that really stokes the fire of learning in one child would completely put it out in another, KWIM?

 

I do believe that the right method will definitely produce more eager learners and kids more willing and able to pursue their own interests in learning, which is one of the things that I think make up a well-educated person. But the right method is going to vary between families.

 

There is no way I can teach my kids everything they need to know (nor could a school, for that matter), but I can teach them how to learn and get them interested in learning and I can expose them to all sorts of things until something triggers an interest.

[Mandy in TN]

Neuroscience is bearing out what educators have said for millenia -- foreign language study, music study, and mathematics study all increase a person's raw capacity for and speed of thought. So, yes, I believe a child who studies those three things will be better able to think than he would have been, had he not.

 

:iagree:bolding mine

Mandy

[Alana in Canada]

I'm glad the question of "multiple intelligences" has come up. What do you mean by "smart?"

 

In my opinion, character counts far more than either raw or educated intelligence. Without diligence--I don't care how smart you are--you won't ever find that cure for cancer or write a book. Without loyalty, you'll never have friends to discuss your efforts with. And so on.

 

This thought doesn't quite follow from the first--at least not in a straight line--but, even for we homeschoolers, I'm beginning to believe that "education" is more about enculturation than it is about creating "smart" individuals.

[paulcindy]

:iagree:

 

Good point Alana. Thank you:)

[Nan in Mass]

I've seen this (lopsided). My first thought was that she might not speak woman A's language well. Or there might be a major cultural mismatch.

[Nan in Mass]

I think this is why it is important to define your educational goals and philosophy when you begin to homeschool, and then keep redefining it as you and your children grow and change. Whether you wind up with children who seem "smart" to you depends on how you define "smart". Some examples, there are hunter-gatherer cultures that spend hours and hours teaching their children how to walk, something that I spent almost no time on, assuming that it would just happen naturally. In my world, I didn't need my children to walk well early. Or my best friend's family was very politics oriented, and I'm sure I still seem a complete dunce to them although my level of education and my intelligence is about the same. My uncle, who is an ordained minister, very well educated, very well-read, seems very unsmart in our family because he isn't handy or technical or knowledgable about science or natural history. I seemed stupid to some of my high school friends who were in sectetarial classes and less sheltered at home. I didn't know anything about the music and TV programs they took for granted, and my manners were different and seemed rude (I said thank you when given a present instead of protesting, for example), and I had barely heard of things like insurance and didn't know how to buy a car, and I couldn't spell or do arithmetic, and I was very slow at things like picking out a name from a list or looking things up in a phone book. I was very shy and stupid about people. I didn't know how much things ought to cost. They were completely baffled about how I managed "the high classes". They were kind and helped me and looked out for me. It all depends on one's perspective. If you define educated and smart, then you will have a better idea of how to get your children there. If educated and smart to you means someone who can compose symphonies and play six instruments and improvise with a jazz band, then you might well want to do something brief for subjects other than music. And about your writing curriculum question - picking a curriculum that suits your child's brain wiring is a major advantage of homeschooling. How many of us have tried something that was super successful for one family only to discover that our children were incapable of learning from it?

-Nan

[frogpond1]

and get very different results. A factor to think about is how diligent is the family to working every week. I see families fail with really decent materials because they don't devote the time to them. I also think there are some crummy programs out there that do a disservice to homeschoolers. Students are different too and their learning needs vary so even within one family one program may not work with each child.

[Peela]

I think smarter and better educated are not the same thing at all. So many kinds of smartness. Better educated? Possibly. I think student A who uses TWTM recommendations, and approach, may be better educated than student B who uses Lifepacs. If we didnt think so, why are we here? But there are so many other factors. Student B may use Lifepacs, finish their schoolwork in good time, and then spend the rest of their time reading classic novels or encyclopedias or the any one of a thousand things homeschoolers do in their spare time that often puts them streaks ahead of schooled kids. They may actually learn to think for themselves. But student A may, or may not.

 

There is biology, there is inclination, there is the subjective idea of what a good education is (not everyone is going to agree that Greek and Latin are signs of having had a good education anymore).

 

Curriculum is just one piece of the puzzle- maybe it has more importance for some kids than others. Maybe some kids will be well educated no matter what, and others will struggle. The environment of the family is going to make a difference. If the parents speak well, read widely, the house if full of books and ideas are discussed and entertained, if the parents are well educated themselves- this is going to make an impact on the child.

The whole "smarter" thing I find hard to swallow, though. So many types of smart. Street smart is one kind of smart, but how well would our kids survive on the streets? (Love that movie Slumdog Millionaire for that concept). Education I am sure can enhance smartness, but there are plenty of child genuises living ordinary adult lives lacking in vision and creativity. And plenty of amazing, intelligent and well educated people have died on the end of a heroine needle. My own experience is that emotional intelligence plays a considerable role in the wellbeing of a person and their ability to make decisions, take appropriate risks, live in a generous and kind way that is more than just for themselves, etc etc. All the good curriculum in the world wouldnt have saved me from making bad decisions in my teens, but some therapy might have.

 

So many factors. And the best curriculum a child cant do, or can't do well, or cant remember, is not as good as a more mediocre curriculum that the child absorbs well. My ds has done several grammar programs but Winston is finally sticking. Its not recommended in TWTM. But it's what is working- better than using one that he struggles with every day and cant remember.

[PollyOR]

I know a couple in which the husband and wife are both academically smart. And yet, they have made some of the dumbest decisions! After I've been around them, you would think I had some sort of disorder. All I can do is walk around shaking my head in disbelief and rolling my eyes. :lol:

 

They have changed my perception of "smart" and how important it is in this life.

[mom2abcd]

I think a lot is determined by innate intelligence, family attitudes towards learning, and motivation. I also think kids who are voracious readers tend to be very smart.

 

I'm talking book-smart rather than social-smart. In social areas, I think kids learn most by what they see modeled.

[Amber in AUS]

Great reading. Especially enjoyed Rose's comments.

[Tree House Academy]

Absolutely not. It is the child and their desire and capacity for knowledge. You can't hold a truly intelligent child back. They will learn despite their teacher, their situation, or their curriculum. It goes the other way too - I can buy IEW or anything else for my ds who is not a great writer but that doesn't guarantee he will become one. I think talent in certain areas is natural. Of course, you can learn enough to get by, or even do well, but curriculum doesn't "make or break" the learning experience. There is a vast wealth of knowledge out there woven in the pages of millions upon millions of living books that are free for the taking at your local library. Curriculum is only the beginning. :)

[Katrina]

I don't think curriculum itself makes for a smarter child, but I do agree that consistancy with an educational methodololy can. That's what I like about WTM, it's not that you can only use one or two different curriculums to achieve an excellent education, but how you use them. SWB received an excellent education long before her mother and she wrote TWTM and SOTW. So smarter, yes.

 

Now, a lot of people are starting to talk about raw intellegence. I think the two (basic intellegence vs. being "smarter") are different. I've met people with a relatively high intellegence but are to lazy to develop it. I do think educational styles can help students develop their intellegence more so than others.

[MommyJo]

I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with curriculum. All children have different learning styles and each teacher has different teaching methods. There is no way that there is a fit all program for writing or math or anything. Some would say Singapore math is the best program because of the scores it gets but since my son has sensory processing disorder the colorful pictures distract him and he learns nothing. If he went to college 12 years from now they would have him in the lowest math possible to catch him up, however, someone else's kid may have done wonderful and be thriving.

I think it related to A) the teacher and B) the teacher. The teacher has to be able to apply things to everyday life, should be able to choose the methods of teaching based on the students needs, and should make it interesting to that child. Just because my child doesn't use Singpore math (just an example) doesn't mean that he is lacking in any way. Also say, for these individuals that I have met in many places that think just because they buy $2000 worth of curriculum, than their child is better than someone who wasn't able to, I hate that kind of comparison. If it was the best curriculum for their child than great but I don't like people who buy things just to show others up. We have a lot in my area and wow! if they only knew they were not helping their child in the end. The only thing they are teaching is how to accumulate debt :)

[Jenny in Florida]

I don't think curriculum itself makes for a smarter child, but I do agree that consistancy with an educational methodololy can.

 

I object to the use of the word "smart" in this context. As others have pointed out, I think "smart" has to do with potential and ability, not with how much you actually know.

 

With that said, I otherwise agree with this statement. I don't think there's any specific curriculum that acts as a magic bullet to ensure a well-educated child. What we've found is that it's much more about how you approach (and how much you value) education.

 

When mine were tiny, we didn't use any expensive, fancy curricula. We used workbooks we bought at Barnes & Noble or even the dollar store. But, we insisted that they actually use them. We took them seriously and expected the kids to do the same.

 

One thing I will say is that I think it's possible to stunt a child's educational development simply by not providing enough "head room." In other words, while I don't think it matters vitally which curriculum you use, I do think you should take care to find one that fits with your child's learning style and your teaching style and that provides enough academic room to grow. If your child is ready to learn algebra and you've got him or her stuck in long division, that child is not going to work up to his or her potential that year and may turn off math forever. Likewise, if he or she is capable of reading and understanding at a high school level and is given nothing but Dick and Jane, that child won't get a chance to stretch or work out his or her reading muscles and will likely lose ground.

 

I have very bright kids, but we've certainly used (or tried to use) educational materials that haven't worked for one or the other of them. So, if I were so bound up in a certain style that I insisted on sticking with that curriculum because it's "the best," that child would not have made as much progress in that subject as he or she did when I found the right book.

 

But, even if that had happened, they would have been just as smart. They just might not know as much about a few subjects.

[Testimony]

When you think about curriuclum, do you think that if Family A used one curriculum for the same aged child, and Family B used a totally different curriculum for the same aged child, would one child be "smarter", "better", or better "educated" then the other?

 

Is it the curriculum that makes the child?

Or is the child's persona, willingness to learn, the parents time and knowledge passed on to the child?

 

If Family A uses say, the WTM method of classical education, would that child be "better educated" then if Family B chose to use a completely independent curriculum such as ACE, LIFEPACS, or CLE?

 

If one chose to use IEW for writing, and the other chose a Writing Program built into a complete LA program such as CLE, or R+S, would the IEW student be a better writer??

 

I was pondering these things. What do ya'll think? Am I making sense?

 

No, way! No way! No way, does a curriculum make a child smarter! No way!

 

First of all, a true genius is born. A person cannot make a genius. Child prodigys like Beethovan are not made that way. He had the gift. They are born that way. I knew a child in my town who started reading at 3 years old. He just did. His mother did not force him. You cannot make a child read at that age (even though I saw an ad about making 18 months old read). Certain things are skills with the right curriculum help to develop.

 

Second, if a child has a certain learning style, one needs to find the curriculum to fit the child's learning style. That's why we homeschool. If a child is a kinetic learner, would you give him a curriculum that is for a visual learner? The child struggles in that curriculum and we think he has a learning problems.

 

On the other side, if a parent picks a curriculum that matches the child's learning style and the child does well, the parent thinks the curriculum is wonderful. We forget that it matched the child's learning style not that the curriculum is great.

 

In my opinion, all curriculae are great. It is a matter of which one matches your child's learning style. The key to making a child smarter is matching the curriculum to the parent-teacher's teaching style and the child's learning style.

 

I want conclude with this. My desire is to make my child a learner not smarter. A true learner will always desire to become smarter. They will want to read books to understand more. My job as my child's teacher is to teach them the raw basic skill of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Once they have mastered that, then my job is coax them into desiring to want to learn more about the world around them.

 

That's my opinion.

 

Blessings,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

Edited March 30, 2009 by Testimony
word omitted

[MIch elle]

Absolutely not. It is the child and their desire and capacity for knowledge. You can't hold a truly intelligent child back. They will learn despite their teacher, their situation, or their curriculum.

 

From Amazon: Malcolm Gladwell poses a more provocative question in Outliers: why do some people succeed, living remarkably productive and impactful lives, while so many more never reach their potential? Challenging our cherished belief of the "self-made man," he makes the democratic assertion that superstars don't arise out of nowhere, propelled by genius and talent: "they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot." Examining the lives of outliers from Mozart to Bill Gates, he builds a convincing case for how successful people rise on a tide of advantages, "some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky."

 

 

 

Another good book is Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom.

[Danestress]

Or woman B might live and breathe molecular biology and be searching for a cure for cancer, and not give a whit about great books or politics.

 

Right. Or woman B might have a brain that just finds discuss discuss discuss very unpleasant. She might have a "doer" brain. She might be spending the whole time thinking, "I can't wait to get home and get back to sanding the porch" and making a mental list of what she needs at Home Depot. Or she might be thinking about a books she's reading. Some people just don't do well with conversation. There is more than one way to be "smart" as we mostly know but have a hard time really accepting.

 

Or she might find woman A painfully boring and tedious.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Danestress

[Mere2]

I tell my DD quite often that " having knowledge is wonderful, but its not the amount of knowledge that you know, but its wisdom thats important. The wisdom of how and when to use the knowledge."

 

Translated for this post, I would say that:

 

Being smart is great, but knowing when to be smart is even greater.

 

Using good solid curriculumn is great, but knowing how to use that curriculumn is even greater.

 

Fi - who is off to ponder more about the curriculumn that she has bought for her knowledgeable but lacking wisdom daughter.;)

[G5052]

From Amazon: Malcolm Gladwell poses a more provocative question in Outliers: why do some people succeed, living remarkably productive and impactful lives, while so many more never reach their potential? Challenging our cherished belief of the "self-made man," he makes the democratic assertion that superstars don't arise out of nowhere, propelled by genius and talent: "they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot." Examining the lives of outliers from Mozart to Bill Gates, he builds a convincing case for how successful people rise on a tide of advantages, "some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky."

 

 

 

Another good book is Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom.

 

No offense to the OP, but "smart" is not a term used in educational circles. There are so very many factors involved in whether education achieves the desired goals, whether it's at home or in the classroom.

 

In homeschooling, to me the biggest factor in the majority of cases is still the parent, just as in my college teaching it's mostly about me with the textbook secondary. If I can't motivate my students and keep an appropriate amount of pressure on them, having the most expensive, wonderful textbook won't make a bit of difference. A few students will learn on their own and excel no matter what, but the majority of us need a parent or adult mentor to keep us on track.

[4wildberrys]

There is NO way a certain curriculum makes a child "smarter"! And what is the definition of "smart"? Book smart, math smart, science smart, practical living skills smart, street smart etc. etc. And I agree with pp's who say that tailoring a curriculum to learning style properly is what gives the impression that a certain curriculum is "better" than another. I can say that if I tried to use the WTM suggestions to the "T" with my kids----we would all be bored to tears!!! I can honestly say that intellectual intelligence certainly does not spill over into all other areas of life. And geniuses are definitely born that way----and when that innate genius is recognized it cannot be stopped and if it is nurtured it soars. For example, my dad is basically a genius. He sailed through all of his schooling with straight A's, getting a full ride to Stanford University where he sailed all the way through a PhD in Operations Research and has written over a dozen books on it. BUT----that is ALL he did. He worked---and wrote----and we never did things "normal" families did like skiiing or camping or fun trips! Education was ALL that my parents focused on. They have NO practical or fun living skills whatsoever!!! They can change a lighbulb and that is about it. Their house is literally falling apart around them because that is not their priority. I don't think my dad has EVER, EVER even worn a pair of jeans :001_huh: Thankfully---I did not inherit such intellectualism from them---and I consider that I have a better balance in my life. The WTM, fully classical method appeals to me based on my history of schooling and family life growing up----but REAL life dictates that that method just will not work. My kids are getting a good balance of academic and fun because they also will have to LIVE life in the real world one of these days----and interact with all kinds of human beings not all trained in the Classical Method.

 

To this day, I still have trouble balancing a checkbook and living on a practical budget----and I blame it (well, partly) on the fact that my parents sent my brothers and I to the best private schools and focused solely on education and grades. We took advanced maths and english and sciences----but of course these schools never offered Home Ec or Shop or anything practical. It was all about higher and higher academics with no balance. My younger brother, my best friend and I have all had this conversation over the years about how our elite schooling really gave us a disadvantage because all three of us are basically "regular" people. We used curriculums and went to schools that shot for the "stars" but never gave practical skills if the rockets puttered out---KWIM? In fact, by the end of high school, I was so burned on books and learning and pushing so hard---I just wanted to have fun and be "regular" :tongue_smilie:

 

Anyways---Hope I have not gotten too far off topic. Curriculum serves a purpose---and it takes you where you want it to take your kids. But it WILL NOT "create" a genius or make kids intellectually smarter---especially if it is not a good fit or kids end up burned out by high school graduation or they hate learning.

[sunflowerlady]

Very interesting question.:)

 

I have not read all the other replies, so I am just jumping in with my two cents. I do not think a particular curriculum makes one child smarter than another. Each person is an individual with different abilities and potential. There may be certain curriculum which is a better fit for a child, but not necessarily "better" for making a child smarter.

 

It reminds me of the studies regarding homeschooling that show that the amount of money spent does not significantly affect the child's performance. Also, the parent's education level does not make a big difference either. I know these studies are based on standardized testing, and there are many other variables.

 

Regarding using a classical method versus workbooks or textbooks, I think all are good methods and a child can do well with many different approches. I know people who used ACE paces and went on to college and did just fine.

[Caroline4kids]

I know a couple in which the husband and wife are both academically smart. And yet, they have made some of the dumbest decisions! After I've been around them, you would think I had some sort of disorder. All I can do is walk around shaking my head in disbelief and rolling my eyes. :lol:

 

They have changed my perception of "smart" and how important it is in this life.

 

Oh, this is so very true. I know people who speak many, many languages and have a very high IQ. Common sense is not so common with these people.

 

A great saying I heard once was:

 

 

 

 

[nmoira]

 

Or she might find woman A painfully boring and tedious.

:lol:

[paulcindy]

No offense to the OP, but "smart" is not a term used in educational circles. There are so very many factors involved in whether education achieves the desired goals, whether it's at home or in the classroom.

 

In homeschooling, to me the biggest factor in the majority of cases is still the parent, just as in my college teaching it's mostly about me with the textbook secondary. If I can't motivate my students and keep an appropriate amount of pressure on them, having the most expensive, wonderful textbook won't make a bit of difference. A few students will learn on their own and excel no matter what, but the majority of us need a parent or adult mentor to keep us on track.

I probably should have worded my OP better. Rather then "smart", it should have been "better educated". Sorry if I offended anyone. I apologize.

[profmom]

I think smarter and better educated are not the same thing at all. So many kinds of smartness. Better educated? Possibly. I think student A who uses TWTM recommendations, and approach, may be better educated than student B who uses Lifepacs. If we didnt think so, why are we here? But there are so many other factors.

 

Peela may sum up my opinion with this. I went to a Christian school for 3rd - 6th grades that used ACE paces. They let me work ahead until I was 1/2 way through the next grade level's work and then I would no longer have that subject that school year - LOL! Math worked out fine, but I'm not sure I learned much of anything otherwise. I think I mostly learned how to quickly fill in blanks and retain info long enough to take the test over it. We changed to ps when I was in 7th. I ended up being fine, going into a college honor's program on scholarship, but I definitely feel my education lacked real books and encouragement to think. (Made straight As by regurgitating info; no thinking required.)

 

So, based on my own experience, I do feel that curricula is a factor in education -- yes, along with many other considerations.

[profmom]

A great saying I heard once was:

 

 

 

 

 

Love this!!

[Nan in Mass]

I think for some children, any curriculum will do. They can connect the dots and figure it out anything not included in the curriculum. They will read enough to wind up well educated in their areas of interest, given access to resources like a library. For some children, though, which curriculum makes a big difference. Two of mine couldn't put the little pieces with which Saxon teaches into the bigger picture of math. Mine are unlikely to learn to write unless it is specifically taught. I like TWTM because it specifically teaches academic skills that mine would be unlikely to be able to master on their own, and it gives a procedure for using those academic skills for learning things that my children can continue to apply on their own after they graduate. In this sense, I think that yes, TWTM will make my children better educated than another curriculum might. TWTM will allow them to master skills that don't come naturally, and will teach them how to continue to teach themselves after they graduate, and will make it easy enough that they probably will do it. With its flexible content, I'm hoping also that it doesn't burn them out or discourage them or make them hate academics (like the very academic program my oldest went through at our public high school). TWTM is special (to us, anyway) because it teaches how to learn anything academic, not just some specific academic subjects. But again, it works for my family because it matches my goals. It's very generalness makes it unattractive to some families.

-Nan

[Haiku]

First, I would define "smart" as "the ability to synthesize the information your receive into usable format." I don't know what the dictionary definition is, but that's what I mean when I say smart. I'd define "well-educated" as "exposure to and retention of a wide variety and substantial depth of subject matter."

 

With that in mind, I'd say that it's not the curriculum or the style that makes a child smart or well-educated. It's the amount of investment that the parents and child share in the child's education. A completely motivated parent and an unmotivated child won't produce the desired results. A motivated kid and a lazy parent won't produce the desired results. The kid and the parents have to work together and be curious about the world around them for a child to develop smarts and become well educated. I don't think the method matters so much and is more a reflection of our personalities and comfort zones than it is inherent superiority.

 

Tara

[Jenny in Florida]

Oh, this is so very true. I know people who speak many, many languages and have a very high IQ. Common sense is not so common with these people.

 

You know, I always think saying this kind of thing is a lot like assuming that all beautiful women are stupid. It's nice to think that the universe is that "fair," that we all have something and not everything. The problem is that it's not really true.

 

I know many very attractive people who are also really smart, and I've met lots of unnatractive people who are also stupid.

 

I've met many not-terribly-bright people who have no common sense, and I know many very smart people who are also socially competent, kind, attractive and just bursting at the seams with common sense.

 

The world just isn't that simple.

[ClassicMom]

I have been homeschooling since 1993 and have used just about every curricula there is in hopes to find the "right" one to make sure that my kids came out "smart".

 

Children are gifts from God and each one is created with special gifts and talents and each one is smart in a special way. NOT always in intelligence.

Over the years, I have found out that each one has one or more learning disabilities and have had to adjust for that. While my expectations for a couple of them have clearly had to change, I have found that they do have gifts in other areas and have fostered those gifts. But to the average person, they may not seem "smart".

 

We have used some of the more rigorous materials and yet if you spoke to my children, you probably would not know that. So curriculum and intellegence don't always line up. My goal has been to teach them to think the best that they can and to not be fooled by the secular world. We want them to be able to read and understand the Bible and to be able to function in the real world on their own. Finding and moving toward a career goal whether that includes college or not is key. And if marriage and children is the goal, a back-up career is still expected, even if for the short-term.

[Mommy22alyns]

And now this thread has me wondering about where the line is between a "smart" person and a "well-educated" person. I'm rather sensitive about the distinction between the two.

 

I don't want to hijack the thread though. :)

 

 

ETA: Peela summed up my feelings very well:

 

Originally Posted by Peela

I think smarter and better educated are not the same thing at all. So many kinds of smartness. Better educated? Possibly. I think student A who uses TWTM recommendations, and approach, may be better educated than student B who uses Lifepacs. If we didnt think so, why are we here? But there are so many other factors.

 

[Nan in Mass]

My personal definition of intelligence is "ability to pick out a pattern". I'm working on one for creative. Perhaps "putting things together in a new way"?

-Nan

[paulcindy]

This has been a really great thread to read. Thank you to all who have contributed to it.:001_smile: