Mandab, the math narration, I think, was a way to get 4 and 5 year olds to do Saxon math sort of on their own. You wouldn’t need it with an older kid. And the “Franklin Method” is just a reference to the fact that Benjamin Franklin used the Classical Rewrite method to teach himself to write well. So nothing you haven’t learned about already.
Jenene, thanks for the ideas! As I said, I’m leaning toward Life of Fred, but I’m saving this in case we do Saxon. It’s really looking like it’s not going to take 6 or so years to get through all the math, although I guess kids slow down at higher levels. But we can go on with other science subjects, or computer programming, or whatever.
This is a bit off-topic (and I’m sure it has already been discussed in those great math threads from earlier last year) but I’m wondering if some-one can give me a little more information on Life of Fred. Wolf wind seeming you are currently planning to use it I’m assuming you have researched it well. Anyway, Life of Fred has some very good reviews and I know lots of homeschoolers use it as their core curriculum. From my very brief look at the earlier years I don’t understand how it covers everything. Admittedly I haven,t looked at the older years at all. Now, for eg, one of the books mentioned that it covered time but it was only something like 2 o’clock. So how then do you cover the rest of o’clock time. Are you expected to supplement? Or am I completely misreading it? I’m only going on a brief look at the website so would be happy to be corrected.
From what I have heard Life of Fred is very engaging. I have wondered about the ssibility of doing a Saxon book and then having a ‘break’ while doing a Life of Fred before moving on to the next Saxon.
No idea about life of Fred personally. Happy with Saxon not looking anymore
As my kids doing Saxon are 7 and 9 I think we will just completely skip the review and start at lesson 40. The curriculum itself has enough review for that age bracket. I understand doing some of the review with younger kids. If I think any of my kids are struggling even slightly we will revise the plan and probably do a fair chunk of the review section. I also calculated out that 3 books a year wasn’t a big ask but decided to aim for 2 books a year because I know what we are like lol life gets in the way of my best plans :biggrin: we are already behind on this years count!
If I was home schooling I would up the expectations a little. I am surprised that kids who know their math facts of by heart can’t whizz through the books at more than one lesson a day in under 1hour :30 mins My kids are space cadets so they have no chance :nowink: but I know plenty of kids who could. Doing EL could have you finished calculus by 4 years into schooling! Scary :clown: then what do you teach them? Physics, chemistry…and that gets then to age 12 maybe…
My 9 year old daughter did reading at school today for placement testing. She said the book was super easy but had great big word in it that was " easily 12 letters long mum!" " I read it perfectly and Ms H was shocked, her jaw dropped open. I was funny mum. I don’t think they have any books for me. But you do don’t you mum?" Yes of course I do! ( my next comment was " no you are not taking your iPad to school to read books on it!" ) lol lol
Mandab, thanks for the information about how to tackle math. Much appreciated. Yes, at this point, I’m working to ensure his math facts are mastered for all 4 operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. And I’ll be implementing all of the other strategies you’ve mentioned, while using Marshmallow and IXL to ensure I’ve got it all covered. Thank you so much for very useful information. And once that is achieved, into Saxon 54 we go. Wish me luck. lol
Although the kids (i.e., the Robinson, Swann, and Levy kids) were not in what we would call typical formal EL homes, their parents made sure the kids put in the hours of deliberate practice once they started formal schooling. That way, the children were able to surpass kids who may even have started earlier. That said, there are lots of kids who started very early and remained ahead, like the Ahmed brothers I mentioned on the We Can Do thread.
In the Swann family, the kids were required to put several hours of deliberate work each day, and do the work well, without skipping anything. The kids put in hours of deliberate practice, and get more output as a result. Another example is Robert Levy. His kid put in several hours of deliberate practice in math, and ended up with great results. And the Robinson family too - the kids were required to study for 5-6 hours a day, 6 days a week, 12 months per year. It’s then no surprise that they did outstandingly well as a result.
Secondly, these kids, though not in what in we would call typical EL homes, were exposed to EL in informal ways. For example, Swann mother did read alouds with her babies, and I’m sure her younger kids must have soaked in concepts taught to the older kids via immersion. Robert Levy mentioned he used adult vocabulary with his kid from the start, and I’m sure the Robinson mom must have done some prep work (though not formal EL) with the kids, maybe reading aloud, using good vocabulary from the start with the children, etc. She and her husband were well-educated scientists with a high value for learning, so the kids must have soaked up that intellectual atmosphere too. Also, as the husband mentioned, before her death, she had taken the time to acquire materials for all of their kids 12 years of education, in case they ever ran into financial difficulties. A mom with such high value for education must therefore have done some preliminary work with her kids (albeit in an informal way) to prepare her children for formal learning.
Anyway, my point is that though they may not have done EL deliberately and formally as most on this forum, once their kids got to the age of formal learning (around 5 and 6), they required their kids to put in the required hours of deliberate practice, and do the work very well. That way, their kids got further and further ahead. The Robinson kids put in solid 5-6 hours of learning each day, 6 days a week. That totals about 30 hours of solid learning each week. In a month, that’s about 120 hours. And that does not include the hours of recreational reading that they may have done in their free time.
I read this interesting comment on the RC Course of Study Notes on CD 1, in the subsection titled Oral Learning’’ . Prior to making these comments, Dr Robinson had been discussing his son Noah’s outstanding academic achievements. He then went on to say: There is a customary response to extraordinary intellectual achievement. It may be exemplified by the comment, ``that kid is really smart!‘’. In other words, he has achieved excellence as a result of some special gift or endowment. This response automatically makes an excuse for the speaker. He has been bested by an accident of nature, through no fault of his own.
The truth is that it is not that way. The top performers in any human activity usually achieved their positions by very hard work. Moreover, they are seldom the most talented. The most talented often have a tendency to become lazy as a result of their talents and therefore are surpassed by those who really work.
Frequently, parents will say to me: Your child works five to six hours per day, six days a week. Is that necessary? Can't my children do well enough four hours per day, five days per week?'' The answer lies in well enough’'. If you work less, you will learn less. The more the child works, the more he will learn.
Moreover, this principle builds upon itself. If he works hard, he will accomplish more. This greater accomplishment will cause him to enjoy his studies more and to have more self-confidence. He will therefore work even harder and accomplish even more. This process spirals upwards in the best of students. Conversely, of course, the student can spiral downward by the reverse procedure.‘’ QUOTE ENDS.
Elsewhere in the Course of Study notes, Robinson said the following:
``This schedule – First, math or science; Second essay, Third, reading and nothing else – is repeated six days each week, twelve months each year except for days when we are distracted by personal activities, Our actual schedule is such that active study takes place six days per week about ten and one-half months per year or about 275 days per year. The full curriculum would then be 6 hours per day for about 3,300 days or about 20,000 hours between ages 5 to 6 and 18..’’ QUOTE ENDS.
See that reference to 20,000 hours of study? That is double what Anders Ericsson said is required for expertise. I feel that is why the Robinson children excelled as much as they did. David Levy and the Swann children put in their own hours too, hence their success.
I totally agree with you. I guess I wasn’t very clear. What I was saying is that it is a strong program combined with diligence (or hours of practice) that creates success and that it can happen at any age. Even as adults if we were willing to put in the hours I’m sure we too would be able to achieve at a much higher level than where ever we currently are. Our kids are however getting an early start but we still have to ensure they continue. I guess I was just saying that it is quite possible to achieve success even starting later without the advantage of EL and that it really does come down to putting in the hours/effort whether it is when they are 5 months or 5 years.
My husband and I were just discussing the outlier’s 10 000 hours concept again. I really need to read that book. As I said in the post quoted it is my own innate laziness that I struggle against the most. I know success is ‘simply’ a matter of choosing a strong program and then ensuring our children spend the hours required to master it but it is so much easier to let ourselves get caught up in everything else that needs to be done as parents or reading for pleasure, getting the kids involved in extra curricular stuff etc… None of which is ‘bad’ but it is not the best thing when it comes to our children’s eventual success. I need to create a routine/schedule and stick to it. And that is what these parents did. The Swann’s had their mornings, the Robinson’s their set 5 hours and the levy’s their couple of hours after school. Every day with very little breaks. It isn’t hard theoretically :). Just wish my personality wasn’t so laid back and that I was more driven to succeed even in my own personal life.
As to EL in these homes, again I totally agree with you. I made a comment on another thread recently along the lines of I’m not convinced that it matters significantly whether or not you do a formal EL program with your child. It is more about the general attitude and expectations etc… Of the home. I may not have flashed dots like I should have when my son was a baby but his father and I both have degrees, he was always exposed to things considered ‘advanced’, not spoken to as a baby, extended and challenged and expected to succeed. He will be 6 years old in a few weeks and we are just starting Saxon 6/5. I think the same is true in these households. We are only shown a very little glimpse into these children’s education. As you said I’m sure a lot of EL stuff is happening without it being a formal program. Just the fact that education is so highly thought of in the home is a huge advantage. And often what happens is that the attitude/activities in our homes are what we consider normal and not worth mentioning. I’m also sure a lot of learning is still happening outside of ‘school’ hours throughout their lives. I can’t imagine that families that put so much effort into their schooling hours would then park their kids in front of the tv for the rest of the day:)
Somewhat related to this - I was reading a couple of article’s on Tamsyn’s (I think) blog the other day and she mentions that entertainment was created to pacify the slaves and that basically the wealthy had much more useful ways to spend their time. I’m not sure how true this is but it doesn’t really matter. It has made me think about those ‘harmless’ DVDs that I let the kids watch. Or those dumbed down books that I let them read. One of the strengths of the Robinson program is the high quality of books that the children read (and no tv except a movie on very rare occasions). If I feed my children’s minds ‘junk’ even a little bit how can I then expect them to love and seek out the good food. As humans we tend to do what is easiest/of least resistance and reading some of today’s mindless books with watered down plots and vocabulary is a lot easier than reading the type of books recommended by Robinson, ambleside, OFE etc.
Also agree with the ‘your kids are so smart’ or ‘they were born gifted’ type comments. I do believe that there is some genetic tendencies to IQ but I think that the hours spent practicing far outweigh the natural ability (this is assuming ‘normal’ intelligence). Yes, some children are born geniuses but that is by far the minority. And even those that are born geniuses still spend countess hours working on whatever they are gifted in simply because they enjoy it or need to.
Anyway, a very long way of saying I agree with your comments :biggrin:
Side note: Thanks for looking at my blog. Yes, I did reference how Oliver Demille says in one of his books about entertainment being for slaves. That’s the source. It’s an interesting concept and I’ve thought a lot about it. I have wondered if that is really true as well, I think that rich and poor in every society have sought entertainment as a class. I DO know that Elizabeth I was not allowed to do any light reading, and she was very well educated. Regardless of whether the trivia is true, the concept has helped me push myself to spend, say, less time on facebook. I spend too much time online.
Tamsyn, I visit your blog every so often and find much of interest. But, yes, I definitely spend too much time on line - particularly when a thread gets interesting as this one has!
So back to the 10 000 hours…well here are my thoughts I don’t think any of those kids hit 10000 hours…
The Robinson family hit 20000 hours decided into 3 topics. Not 2 which would mean they hit 10000 in at least two areas. However they probably did manage 10000 hours in reading. Because the majority of their time was spend on reading. Their math wa at most 1.5 hours a day and their writing at 1 page a day probably took them 30 mins? Now I am not for an instant undermining the achievements and dedication this family obviously had and instilled in each other but I think they are a bit short on the 10000 hours by age 18. May I add if it takes 10000 hours to do better than the Robinson family then I will be happy with less than excellence lol
Now the Levy family also was a bit short on 10000 hours. They did a lesson a day 6 days a week too right? That’s 1 to 1.5 occasionally 2 hours a day. They were at it for less years over all too I am pretty sure.
The final family the Swann family were public in the fact their studies only took a couple of hours a day first thing in the morning. Actually they may possibly have hit the 10000 in one or two topics but only if they hit 2 hours a day of something for more than 10 years right?
Now I am just thinking aloud without a calculater and I am only up to Saxon 5/4 myself lol so I could be wrong but maybe excellence is less than 10000 hours or maybe it takes less than excellence to get a uni degree in math or science or Maybe those program’s produce excellence faster!
I do agree that it is my own laziness and apathy that means my kids will be lucky to commit the entire way :ohmy: ( perhaps that is secretly why I don’t home school… ) but I know every single Saxon chapter we complete is helping them and every single book we read is one more piece of quality literature they can pull ideas from. Working towards every page they right is one page closer to publishable quality prose. :yes: so I push on :yes:
Interesting idea about completely removing the junk stories. I mean we have a very strict TV allowance here, I thought I was already pretty strict with their literature but thinking about it I do let more crap books through the gaps than crap TV. Might do a library review soon.
A bit more musing…
I question the order the topics are done in. Math first makes perfect sence to me. Activates the brain gets the person thinking more critically as well as having a definite right or wrong answer.
But why follow reading with writing rather than the other way around. It makes more sence to me to do reading and then writing. That way the children are more likely to write about what they read thus retaining the information that they read more readily. Also they are more likely to practice different styles of writing as they have different styles fresh in their head from their reading.
In regards to the idea that entertainment was for pacifying the slaves, I’ve been thinking a lot about TV time. My terrible three year old has started throwing “'I need a DVD!” temper tantrums every five minutes (the rest of the time is “I need sweets!”) and although the DVDs he gets are things like Magic School Bus, a few BBC kids shows that teach about animals/science etc. or general natural history programs, or foreign language, they still seem to drain a huge amount of time from the day. I’ve noticed that as he gets older, the lure of the TV is much stronger and the effect on his temper if I dare say ‘no’ is not fun.
I think that it is hard to take technology out of our lives now. It would be unfair to refuse our children access to computers since so much of the modern world revolves around them, but I can feel the computer and ipad and TV all distracting my son from wanting to play with cars or read. Don’t get me wrong, he does play and we read together but the first thing he wants in the morning is a DVD and I get tantrums when I say no or one finishes and I refuse another, and constant nagging all day for more. He seems to choose his toys first less than half the time. I am thinking of completely banning TV because of all the stress it causes me when I have to say no for the hundredth time!
I really think that even the ‘good’ DVDs are not as good as we like to think (though they are great when I need to wash the dishes) and TV is probably the biggest reason that the general intelligence level of the population seems to be falling - all those potential professors idling their teenage years in front of a box! I know that the Robinson family had no TV or computer access at all and I’m fairly sure something similar went on in the Swann and Levy families. If you think about it, 2 hours of TV a day over 10 years and you’ve lost 10000 hours! And most kids end up watching a lot more than that!
I think the reason the writing is done before the reading is because once writing is finished, the child can fill up the remaining time with reading. Robinson says in the Course of Study:
``After the math or physics and chemistry have been completed, each child writes at least a one-page essay on any subject of their choice. (Occasionally, if they like their subject, they write several pages). Sometimes they write descriptive essays, sometimes they write about recent experiences, and sometimes they write fiction stories. I do not direct them to topics. The only requirement is that they write.
I read these essays, circle all errors of grammar, punctuation, and spelling that I notice, and return the papers. That is most of my teaching activity. They must correct these errors before writing the new essay for the following day…
After the essay, each child must fill the remaining time (5 to 6 hours total is required each day for all three subjects) with free reading from a specific set of books…‘’ QUOTE ENDS.
MummyRoo,
My very mellow, never throw a tantrum son, started to have fits to watch TV. And he also chose them before toys and books.
He had absolutely no TV until he was 18 months. And it was only a rare signing time DVD. At 2 I started to let him watch a Netflix show several times a week. A month before he turned 3 we got A television in our home. My parents stayed with us that month and let James watch junk tv all day.
After that month I went back to limited TV. Just a dvd or 2 a day. I never have the tv on during the day for myself. But the damage seemed to be done. James started those tantrums. So I turned the TV off for a whole week. No DVDs and no Netflix. He has since stopped the tantrums. And frankly if they start up again or he shows a preference to TV I will ban it again.
Korrale4kq, I’m glad I’m not the only one :laugh: I have been trying to keep TV time to after-lunch only (and then a maximum of 2 short programs) but it hasn’t stopped the tantrums. Maybe I need a complete ban for a couple of weeks to make him appreciate them as a treat again!
At the very least, it might encourage him to try reading (he is still refusing to recognise whole words, and sounding out CVC words with less and less enthusiasm :unsure: ) which I blame at least partially on a preoccupation with television. He is amazingly stubborn, though - yesterday he insisted that he couldn’t read the word ‘a’, despite being able to recognise the letter and sound for at least 12 months. He said it read ‘cat’ :rolleyes:
Having a very reluctant reader has made me wonder how reading-based curricula (such as CM and the Robinson one) work with children who don’t like to read. I know my brother read only when he had to (which means the cheats section of computer gaming websites, not for schoolwork - he once paid my sister to watch and re-tell to him the video of Animal Farm so that he didn’t have to read the book for his exam!) though he is very intelligent and a capable reader. Maths has always been his forte.
Do non-bibliophiles learn to like (or even love) reading, or does their whole education become a chore to them? Does anyone have any first-hand experience of this?
I tutor a very reluctant reader. She is in fifth grade. It terrifies me to be honest. Her school work suffers greatly because of it. Especially her writing. All subjects need reading. And reading difficulty increases over the years. Her parents never read to her when she was little and she does not have a literature rich enviroment in her home. I really would like to think that confributes to the reluctance.
I think the biggest struggle with reading is learning to read. That is why I taught James early. He will never remember learning. I have also made an effort to make reading a habit. Something that James has to do everyday. Just like brushing teeth. I really hope that helps with any reluctance and will keep him improving. Ideally I always want him to read and comprehend above grade level work so that it is easier for him throughout school.
Only time will tell how things work out.
That makes me feel better - we definitely have a literature rich environment (I don’t have space for any more books) and he loves listening to me read to him, which we do often. We also practice reading daily, despite apparent lack of progress, so I guess that means there is hope
Jenene, sorry for the late reply. I haven’t looked at the early years of Life of Fred; I was planning to use math games and maybe Right Start until starting formal schooling at 5 or 6, and by then I expected to be ready for the intermediate books, if not Fractions and Decimals. Those seem to me to be the equivalent of Saxon 6/5. So I don’t know if the elementary ones are complete or not. I was also considering combining Saxon and Life of Fred; we’ll see.
I want to reply to some of the later posts, but that will have to wait.
I don’t know if I’ll ever be as strict or do as many hours as any of these families we’re discussing. Maybe my kids won’t achieve “excellence,” as such, as a result, but I’m sure it’ll be good enough for me. If I recall correctly, excellence in Outliers was defined by being an outlier - not just getting a degree in a subject, but making field-shattering discoveries in that subject (or being a star, in music or sports). I don’t think that’s important at age 18, so I won’t even try to reach 10000 hours in one thing by age 18. I’d rather let them get a background in many things, including free time, and continue specializing as they get older. By following any of these models, my kids are likely to have a university degree by the age of 20 or earlier, leaving them lots of time to become outliers in those fields while they’re in their twenties, if that’s what they want. I’m personally not interested in specializing in one thing enough to reach 10000 hours and be a leader in that field, and I won’t care if they’d rather be Renaissance Women (and men, hopefully) than specialists.
I’ve also wondered about that quote from Tamsyn’s blog. “Amusement is for slaves,” is the catchphrase I was telling myself. But I like simple, amusing literature sometimes. OK, probably too much of the time. I should restrict my own amusement reading before I try to restrict the kids’. They’re not old enough for it to matter yet, but it will be hard when they’re big enough to pick books from the library themselves. I would like to just let them take whatever they like, and if we’re doing 4-6 hours of school a day I think it should be OK if they want to read every book in the Baby-Sitters Club series. But I don’t think RC would approve of that. What do you all think? Maybe I’ll try a month with no "amusement " literature for myself and see how it goes. What about good literature that’s below reading level, like rereading books from earlier on the Robinson Curriculum? For my experiment, I think I’d allow it; I might go crazy with no simple things to read.
I do have to restrict TV and DVD viewing; it definitely leads to tantrums. One family movie every few weeks works fine for us, but any more than that and it causes too much fuss. When I’m sick, I let us watch movies, and every time we get well, we have to spend a week detoxing, with lots of tantrums. But when I’m sick, it’s worth it. The rest of the time, certainly not.
Charlotte Mason makes a point about ``light’’ reading in Volume 1, pages 175-77. She said:
[b]Dr. Arnold’s Knowledge as a Child[/b].–– On the whole, the children who grow up amongst their elders and are not provided with what are called children’s books at all, fare the better on what they are able to glean for themselves from the literature of grown-up people. Thus it is told of Dr. Arnold that when he was three years old he received as a present from his father of Smollett’s History of England as a reward for the accuracy with which he went through the stories connected with the portraits and pictures the successive reigns––an amusement which probably laid the foundation of the great love for history which distinguished him in after life. When occupying the professorial chair at Oxford, he made quotations, we are told, from Dr Priestley’s Lectures on History––verbally accurate quotations, we may believe, for such was the habit of his mind; besides, a child has little skill in recasting his matter––and that, though he had not had the book in his hands since he was a child of eight. No doubt he was an exceptional child; and all I maintain is, that had his reading been the sort of diluted twaddle which is commonly thrust upon children, it would have been impossible for him to cite passages a week, much less some two score years, after the reading.
Literature Proper for Children.––This sort of weak literature for the children, both in any story and lesson books, is the result of a reactionary process. Not so long ago the current impression was that the children had little understanding, but prodigious memory for facts; dates, numbers, rules, catechisms of knowledge, much information in small parcels, was supposed to be the fitting material for a child’s education. We have changed all that, and put into the children’s hands lesson-books with pretty pictures and easy talk, almost as good as story-books; but we do not see that, after all, we are but giving the same little pills of knowledge in the form of a weak and copious diluent. Teachers, and even parents, who are careful enough about their children’s diet, are so reckless as to the sort of mental aliment offered to them, that I am exceedingly anxious to secure consideration for this question, of the lessons and literature proper for the little people .’’ QUOTE ENDS.
This is how the Modern English Paraphrase renders the above quoted pages:
``Dr. Arnold’s Knowledge as a Child - Generally, children who grow up with adults and never have juvenile books are better able to glean from the literature of adults. It is said of Dr. Arnold that when he was three years old, he was given a gift from his father, Smollett’s book The History of England as a reward for correctly identifying pictures and portraits and telling about their historical relevance. That game probably laid the foundation for his love of history, which made him famous. When he worked at Oxford, he was able to quote from Dr Priestly’s Lectures on History from memory accurately–although he hadn’t seen the book since he was eight years old! Of course, he was an exception. My point is, if he had been reading the typical twaddle that is forced on most children, he would never have been able to remember entire passages even a week later, much less forty years after reading the book.
The Kind of Literature Appropriate for Children - The kind of weak literature we see today both in their stories and lessons is a reaction against the old days when little children were expected to memorize reams of data by rote that they didn’t even understand. Dates, numbers, rules, catechisms, densely packed pamphlets of information were thought to be the best material to educate children. We have gone to the other extreme and given children school books with pretty pictures and sweet texts, almost as interesting as story books. What we don’t realize is that this merely gives children the same tedious facts, but in a weak, diluted form–and plenty of it. Teachers and parents are meticulous about the diet that nourishes their children’s bodies, but yet they’re careless about the mental diet they provide for the child’s mind. I am anxious to discuss this issue about the quality of lessons and literature for children. ’’ QUOTE ENDS. (Emphasis in the above quotes are mine).
Yes, I did reference how Oliver Demille says in one of his books about entertainment being for slaves. That’s the source. It’s an interesting concept and I’ve thought a lot about it. I have wondered if that is really true as well, I think that rich and poor in every society have sought entertainment as a class. I DO know that Elizabeth I was not allowed to do any light reading, and she was very well educated. Regardless of whether the trivia is true, the concept has helped me push myself to spend, say, less time on facebook. I spend too much time online. 
) but I know every single Saxon chapter we complete is helping them and every single book we read is one more piece of quality literature they can pull ideas from. Working towards every page they right is one page closer to publishable quality prose. :yes: so I push on :yes: