Can we talk about whether integrated programs are all they are cracked up to be?

[love2read]

In several posts lately people have said they wanted to use a curriculum that was more integrated and that their own curriculum was not integrated. I know what that means to me, but I'm wondering-

 

What does an integrated curriculum mean to you?

Why do you think it's important?

 

Over the years of homeschooling I've noticed that this is something that people talk about every spring. Integrated could mean a variety of different things, and while one definition that I could come up with wouldn't really matter, the other focus of integrated studies would seem to effect the child's development. Rather than kill the conversation by jumping right in with my thoughts I'd really like to hear what you all think.

Edited April 14, 2009 by love2read

[Avila]

I am one who looks at them every planning year, and I have even been sucked into buying one of them. I don't know why I keep coming back, because they don't work for me! I know they are great for other families because I believe them when they post here. :D I know other people make them work, but I can't, because as soon as I get one home, the perfect curriculum doesn't look so perfect for us any more, and the first thing I do is start deconstructing it and tweaking it to make it a better fit. Then I am left with something that honestly doesn't resemble the one I purchased and I repeat the cycle with thinking that maybe THAT was the problem, you know, that I am not doing the program as intended.

 

I find I do better with deciding on my perfect fit for each subject and then using the time and energy I was pouring into the curriculum hunt into making all my perfect pieces fit. I am also drifting back to my WTM roots, and I find that WTM is fitting us much better in the logic stage than it was in the grammar stage. Of course, I am also a more experienced HSer now, and that was part of my problem using WTM earlier too.

 

No answers, just pondering, I guess. I often wonder if all the people raving about this curriculum or that one will still be faithful to it a year from now, or if some of them will be the ones moving on to the next new thing next year.

 

ETA: I guess I am looking at integrated as being whole programs, where everything is scheduled for you and things are supposed to be set up to go together. Kind of like the old Mary Kay make-up system, where they wouldn't sell the make-up unless you bought the skin care because unless you have the basic foundation, none of the rest will work the way it is supposed to. Not that I believe that entirely, but that is probably why I can't make the integrated programs work either.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Asenik
adding stuff!

[Christy B]

No answers, just pondering, I guess. I often wonder if all the people raving about this curriculum or that one will still be faithful to it a year from now, or if some of them will be the ones moving on to the next new thing next year.

 

I have been homeschooling for nine years and I have found it so VERY important to understand this. I've learned to be graciously skeptical of the rave reviews of curriculum from new users (or worse yet, those who have yet to order and examine the curriculum!) I've been guilty of this myself, so I understand how it happens. I've learned how to better phrase questions regarding curriculum; for example, on the hs board I posted and asked what have been some favorite materials *used* in high school. This way, I get the benefit of hindsight from those more experienced than myself.

 

Now, as to the OP's original question -- this has been much on my mind lately as well.

 

To me, integrated curriculum means that you use the fewest separate materials to cover the greatest amount of information possible. It also means that you blur the line between "subjects".

 

For example, I would consider LLATL an integrated Language Arts curriculum, because it seeks to cover reading, grammar, composition, spelling, and vocabulary between the covers of one book.

 

I would consider something like TOG an integrated curriculum because it uses history to organize a study of history, geography, literature, etc. Reading Johnny Tremain then serves more than one purpose; it is history, literature, comprehension, and possibly composition.

 

I suppose one could consider those mega-workbooks, Comprehensive Curriculum, an integrated curriculum, based on the first example of the definition. For that matter, Alpha Omega lifepacs integrate phonics, reading, and composition across the curriculum (at least in the elementary grades). I suspect, though, that is not what most people on this board have in mind when they discuss integrated curriculum.

 

I'm struggling with this, looking at programs such as Omnibus (currently on my short list). Sure, it integrates Bible, Literature, and History -- BUT -- if it doesn't include literary analysis and composition *instruction*, I am going to have to add those components to it. For *me*, this makes the program "less integrated"; my priority is more in line with my first definition -- the fewer separate materials we have to use, the better. My daughter struggles with *perceived* subjects covered. For others, though, this could make no difference at all in their consideration of the program as integrated -- their priority might be making the conceptual connections between the disciplines. They are delighted to study the book of Genesis as history, theology, and literature, and are comfortable with pulling from a history text, a Bible study supplement, and a writing program.

 

I can see where this could cause confusion in discussing materials. There is certainly a difference between integrating subjects and integrating concepts, isn't there?

[Tabrett]

I keep looking for an integrated curriculum I like. My reason is because I keep adding and dropping things to my k curriculum. I feel like it is all dis-joined. For example: I started using SL k LA with my k'er and Phonics Pathways. PP's took my dd way past SL K LA, so I dropped it. I kept on with ETC A,B, & C and added ETC 1, 2, & 3. I was using HWT's, but got frustrated with with it because my dd needed to know how to write lower case letters for ETC A-C. I then skipped all the upper case letter work in HWT's (first half of the book) and zoomed through the last half of the book and bought GDI B. Even though my dd didn't need to keep doing ETC A-C, I didn't drop it because I liked the reading the clues page and the tracing the dashed lines pages. ETC 2-3 doesn't teach phonetic skill in the same order as PP's. I have chosen to do the order in PP's and keep having to hunt the pages that goes with the skills in ETC books, which means that sometimes they run into words they haven't learned how to read yet.

My ds (3yo) is doing LHTH. I have my dd doing the Bible and Art section with my ds because the Bible is integrated with the art and it is making it stick. Also, SL doesn't have any art or hands on and my dd craves art! I still don't feel like my dd's fine and gross motor skill are being addressed.

 

Is this making sense as to why I want something integrated? I need something that will keep the LA and reading skills my dc need to learn at the same progress level. I need some arts and crafts to help cement lessons they are learning. I want my kids to have LA integrated with other subjects.

 

It seems when I piece together curriculum's, the curriculum's don't teach the skills in the same order. I end up piecing everything together. There has got to be an easier way to learn! I'm not interested in work text or work book programs. I don't want my dc sitting doing worksheets all day.

 

I have purchased MFW 1 for next year. I am hoping that it will address all the problems stated above. If it doesn't work, I am going to try HOD.

 

I don't think this will be as big an issue once all the basic skill of reading and writing are learned. I hope!!!!!!!!!:001_huh:

 

There are so many great curriculums, but it is hard to make the curriculums fit together. KWIM?

[Carol in Cal.]

Yup, that's it, my official take on the subject.

 

Yes, I think that making history and Bible and science and language arts and math work together is a wonderful thing. But I prefer to do it myself, and teach MY child instead of some other theoretical child, or worse, some theoretical curriculum.

 

Every time I look at one of those integrated curricula, I realize that I'm trading off something else that I want to do. And it's hard! I really wanted to do Starting Points with DD this year, but I didn't agree with making the US history book our main spine (it's a POV rather than true history, interesting but not a spine IMO), and I really, really wanted to do LLLOTR, and I really, really wanted to do Concordia's Church History and Social Issues curricula, all of which SP would have crowded out, so I had to decide. I decided not to do SP, because I wanted to do something better as a whole.

 

And every time I face one of those decisions, whether it's for TOG or Quine or Sonlight or K12 or or or, I realize again that the trade offs are not worth it for my family, seductive though they may be. There is ALWAYS something important that I'm giving up when I do those, whether it's a 'one subject' curriculum that I really want to use, or just the freedom to focus on opportunities that come up, like a Lego Robotics team or a serious Shakespeare study opportunity or the chance to study an opera in depth and then perform it it (!) (currently happening for my DD, what a blessing!). If I had unlimited funds, I would probably buy some of those anyway and just chop them up, use what I want and ditch the rest. But as they are so expensive, I worry that I will place myself at their mercy to 'get our money's worth'.

 

Besides, I'm an avid reader and a history buff. I know more hymns than any curriculum I have ever seen. I have a chemical engineering degree. I LOVE pulling material together. Just love it. It would take half the fun out of homeschooling if I couldn't develop my elegant book lists and tie them to the history studies that are concurrent or intersperse Bible with Ancients or pick out the exactly right time to study and consider and reconsider God's take on social issues or how cool physics is or "Enchantress from the Stars" or "The Diamond In The Window"--that's the fun stuff for me--getting DD to the point where she has all the tools to study anything, and watching her take on big writing projects with confidence and really excel at them, and envisioning where we will end up.

 

I do not object to comprehensive programs, but although I admire them with the type of respect that I afford any other peer who figures out a great way to homeschool their children, I also prefer to do this my own way.

[myfunnybunch]

I love the idea of an integrated curriculum.

 

The problem is that they never integrate the subjects way *I* would integrate them.

 

LLATL is a great example. I thought it would be fantastic. Reading and writing and spelling, oh my! It seems to be a good solid program. But I find myself adding spelling words, using a different reading book, saying "You don't need to read that", "Let's do this instead", and "No, you don't have to act it out."

 

I found the same thing when working with my oldest during her middle school years.

 

I agree with Carol in Cal. I now know that I love pulling materials together. I admire integrated curricula and know that they work for some families. No matter how appealing the idea, I'll probably avoid using an integrated curriculum in the future because it doesn't really save me any time. I find myself thinking, "If only..." and skipping pieces or adding pieces or changing pieces to really meet my child's needs. And using an all-in-one curriculum tends to discourage us from taking off on a "rabbit trail" just because, which is one of our favorite things about homeschooling.

 

Cat

[love2read]

 

I LOVE pulling material together. Just love it. It would take half the fun out of homeschooling if I couldn't develop my elegant book lists and tie them to the history studies

Oh, isn't that the truth. I too love the idea of an integrated curriculum, but the focus always seems to be too contrived--almost like some unit studies that have the child counting plastic lions when studying Africa.

[TravelingChris]

I am debating what to use with my youngest next year. We are using Calvert 6 with Calvert 7 math. I like the math, geography, art, reading, and history. I am not finding the science very thorough. The English is okay but the spelling is too hard for her. Since she is having a hard time with spelling, we aren't doing the composition program either.

 

What I like are programs that are easy to use for the children without much help from the parent all the time. I simply do not have lots of time or energy to plan. Calvert is doing that for me. I just haven't decided whether I should continue with this or change to BJU video classes or just put together various mostly self teaching programs. I help all my children as they need it but I really feel that by seventh grade, they should be able to learn a lot by themselves with parental supervision and guidance.

[SnowWhite]

To me, the most helpful thing about "integrated" studies is that it gives children a context for their learning. The program I use most is WinterPromise. The creative writing and readers are "integrated" with the history or geography them you are studying. This tends to make the writing easier for the student to be inspired with, and the readers more relevant. I don't think everything needs to be "matchy-match" with all the science tied in with the history and the reading... etc.... it's just a question of relevance and context for us.

[Sahamamama]

I love the idea of an integrated curriculum. The problem is that they never integrate the subjects way *I* would integrate them. I find myself saying, "You don't need to read that", "Let's do this instead", and "No, you don't have to act it out." I now know that I love pulling materials together.

 

:iagree: My husband sees me looking at those nice catalogs for "integrated" themed programs, and he shakes his head. "Honey," he'll say, "you know you're never going to buy one of those, so why are you looking and looking?"

 

Ideas. Seriously, I look at the outlines, the resources, the layout, so to speak -- but then I know that I'm simply too independent and do-it-myself to follow someone else's daily/weekly schedule or checklist. I think, "Yeah, right, I'm going to get up and do THAT. Nope."

 

But for some reason, I can and do get up and do what I have laid out for our studies. It isn't less work, just different than following an "Instructor's Guide." I still can't seem to wrap my head around being "told" what to do in my own home, LOL!

 

My previous employer used to laugh at how I'd put everything into a chart, matrix, or timeline -- it was the office joke, really. Need a schedule? Ask Beth. Need a chart? Ask Beth? Need a policy and procedure? Ask Beth. It's just something I do. For fun. For now. We'll see about later, when the girls are older. Maybe then I'll want to open up an Instructor's Guide, pull a book off the shelf, and read....

 

I will say, though, in defense of some of these publishers, that when I do come across a great idea or resource, I will and do order from THEM, because they put me on the trail. For example, at some point next year, we plan to study American History (part 1) -- I could (and still may) order American History I from Winter Promise. It looks great, I think we'd enjoy it... BUT then I come around to thinking that I could simply take the booklist and go to the library and do the same thing myself for less.... and so on.... That said, if and when I want to BUY something on that booklist, I will buy it from WP, because their work should gain them something, KWIM? It's their list that I'm working from (or Sonlight's or Veritas Press's or....), so when I pick something to purchase, I think that maybe they should get the credit for the recommendation. Does that make sense to the independent-minded among us? ;)

[Sahamamama]

Oh, isn't that the truth. I too love the idea of an integrated curriculum, but the focus always seems to be too contrived--almost like some unit studies that have the child counting plastic lions when studying Africa.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Sahamamama]

To me, the most helpful thing about "integrated" studies is that it gives children a context for their learning. The program I use most is WinterPromise. The creative writing and readers are "integrated" with the history or geography them you are studying. This tends to make the writing easier for the student to be inspired with, and the readers more relevant. I don't think everything needs to be "matchy-match" with all the science tied in with the history and the reading... etc.... it's just a question of relevance and context for us.

 

Snow White -- Not to hijack the thread, but are you satisfied with WP AH1? I was thinking of perhaps using this at the end of next year. My oldest is already a reader. We are doing World Geography/Habitats this year, but would like to cover the first part of US history next year (our year begins in March). So, she'll be that much farther along by then. :bigear:

[SnowWhite]

Yes, American Story 1 has been a hit this year. It will depend on your dd's maturity whether she can *take in* the concepts it presents next year or not.

[Peela]

Nope, they dont work well for me. I am such a tweaker. I think the idea is that its less work for the mum to pull together. Thats ok if the mum is capable of just doing what she is told- X this day, Y the next- but I am not. Life gets in the way. We like parts of it, not others. Some feels like busywork. I feel like focusing on something and not what the program is focusing on.

During every year, my program morphs a lot, no matter what I started out with. Last year I planned out our CM year this year, with HEOYear7. Well, altohugh we are using about half the books, it probably doesnt look much like CM or HEO to anyone because once we got started I dropped things and added others, found a good writing program and dropped CM style narrations, changed the order of the books, etc

If my kids HAD to homeschool more independently than they do, it might be useful to have more integrated programs, but as long as I am around to perfect things :), they dont need it.

[Rosie_0801]

I love the idea of an integrated curriculum. The problem is that they never integrate the subjects way *I* would integrate them.

 

 

They've struck me the same way :) I think integration is good in places like the arts. Handle on the Arts looks good because it combines painting, music and architecture. Combining history and geography is good. Maybe integration is good in content, but not skill subjects? I think an integrated language arts program would give me a pain in the belly.

 

Rosie

[Lovedtodeath]

 

That said, if and when I want to BUY something on that booklist, I will buy it from WP, because their work should gain them something, KWIM? It's their list that I'm working from (or Sonlight's or Veritas Press's or....), so when I pick something to purchase, I think that maybe they should get the credit for the recommendation. Does that make sense to the independent-minded among us? ;)

That is me to a "T". But, I will probably only plan history and go ahead and buy their science programs. History is more fun for me to plan. :)

[Amber in AUS]

I to love the IDEA of an integrated program but can't seem to find anything that is 'just right' so I am DIYing it. I too draw from other programs WP, MFW, HOD, SL but like to do it MY way.

 

Integrated to me is similar to what a PP said getting the most subjects covered by the 1 curricula.