The "extras" in elementary - do they really retain it?

[scheelimama]

I know classical education really has an emphasis on history, geography, science, art, etc. I've heard more than once from seasoned homeschoolers that anything above learning to read and write in the first few years is "gravy" since everything gets covered again and they really don't retain much at these ages. Many of them say anything before 4th/5th grade is covered again in more depth and is really not necessary. What do you all think?

I waffle between waldorf-ish aspirations and classical aspirations. I know my girls are young, only 6.5 and almost 5, but sometimes I worry that if I don't go a more classical route, they won't get everything they need. But then, I'm totally drawn to the more magical experiences that a Waldorf inspired education (I'd never do pure Waldorf, doesn't suit me) would give them. I worry too much and over analyze it all way too much.

Anyway, what do you all think about my original question, is it really necessary to place a heavy emphasis on history/geography/social studies/science (science beyond what they'd get by just observing nature) in the elementary grades?

[2xy]

To be honest, I think that people retain what they're interested in. So, I believe it's an individual thing. A kid who is fascinated with ancient Egypt or the Civil War might very well retain information about History and geography.

A kid who is interested in chemical reactions and computer guts, not so much.

I think kids need to learn how to read, write, and calculate. I tend towards interest-led learning for most everything else.

[Lillian J]

I think it's wonderful to "learn about" all those things - which is different from "learning" them. A young child is not going to take in the information on the same level as a much older one, so why go through the process of putting them through formal study of it on a lower level and then have to repeat it in broader and deeper ways? Think back about what you learned in elementary school compared to what you learned later - did you really get your important learning of those things in then? What if those earlier years get spent touching on those things in ways that whet the appetite for learning more as the years pass? This business of "everything they need" is something most of us whose children have reached adulthood can't relate to - people don't all need identical things to be happy and successful in their education and careers and everyday lives. - Lillian

[scheelimama]

Lillian, you always have such sage advice. I think I need to print that out and put it on my refrigerator as a reminder when I start worrying about what people will think again. It always comes back to others people's opinions for me and then I start to worry that maybe I'm letting my kids down if we don't cover everything that would have been covered in a public school setting. I MUST let that go. It's so much easier said than done though.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by 2xy

To be honest, I think that people retain what they're interested in. So, I believe it's an individual thing. A kid who is fascinated with ancient Egypt or the Civil War might very well retain information about History and geography.

A kid who is interested in chemical reactions and computer guts, not so much.

I think kids need to learn how to read, write, and calculate. I tend towards interest-led learning for most everything else.

:

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

-Angela

[EdnaMarie]

I remember things I learned in the third grade. A lot, actually. My favorite part of my education was third grade astronomy. I also remember second grade arts and music.

It really depends on the kid. Some children will be ready for detailed learning about the world. Some will not really be absorbing anything but what they, personally, want.

I know it would be really hard to do Waldorf AND Classical, one for each child, but I think you may have to adapt to what your kids show strengths in.

[Lillian J]

First of all, thanks for the kind words, Alisha.

Originally Posted by scheelimama

It always comes back to others people's opinions for me and then I start to worry that maybe I'm letting my kids down if we don't cover everything that would have been covered in a public school setting. I MUST let that go. It's so much easier said than done though.

It was just the opposite for me! When I started, I was surrounded by unschoolers who never said anything rude but silently made it clear, even without meaning to, that they didn't have much patience for someone who was trying to figure out how to work in studies of this and that. I think everyone has their own unique challenges in the way of their surrounding pressures, and it's so much worse today with all the static coming from all directions online!

My son was already doing well in college classes when all this fuss about methods and styles was taking hold. I'll never forget the call I got one day from a woman who had a bunch of phone numbers and website addresses jotted down and had no idea who she was calling or where she'd found their numbers. It was spring, and she said she couldn't start homeschooling till fall, because she had so much research yet to do. I tried to reassure her it was okay to go ahead and start, and she said indignantly, "But I don't even know what style I'm going be! I mean am I going to be classical or montessori, or unschooling or..." and she want on... I tried to offer some calm words of reassurance that she didn't need to pick a style before she began, but it was clear that I'd just established myself as someone who didn't know what she was talking about. She quickly dismissed me to go on to the next phone call. It's hard for those of you coming into homeschooling today to be able to ignore all that kind of static - I have no doubt that I would have been anxious about it too. But just remember that lots of kids have graduated from homeschooling with no particular style or method at all and have gone on to wonderful things and successful college experiences. Lillian

[AJP]

Lillian, you rock.

[fivepointedstar]

I totally agree with everything that's been said. I see the younger grades as a time to retain and build upon that natural desire to learn. I think of it as not so much learning a subject but creating a warmness in the child's heart for a subject so that when they come back to it later they'll approach it with a warm fondness. I would want them to be able to say with a reminiscent smile, "Oh, I remember that."

It's interesting, Waldorf is where my interest and knowledge comes from, but I just started reading about classical education and I can see how the two could go together quite well. Some of the approaches to child development are similar and the history curriculum is covered in both (though in Waldorf it is spread out over 8 years, rather than repeated twice in the same period.) Though I don't know much about classical education, based on what I do know it seems like a "classical Waldorf" education is quite possible. I wonder what others think?

Meredith

[Bird Girl]

Just to throw in another expert opinion...but not mine, since it's far from expert.

Daniel Willingham is a cognitive scientist who writes about issues in education. It's wonderful to see his scientific mind at work--and he's a wonderful writer. In this blog post here he writes about how teachers who introduce material from other subjects into their reading instruction had students with higher scores. And here is a great video showing how content from other disciplines directly impacts reading ability.

So bringing in content from other areas directly boosts reading ability. It shouldn't make too much difference if you choose high content books for your girls, or they choose books for themselves. As long as you are integrating other academic disciplines and plenty of high-content material, you are building those "reading and writing" skills that are so crucial to the elementary years.

[scheelimama]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll have to go back to making my own daily curriculum instead of trying to use a prepackaged one. We're using Sonlight's P4/5 core right now and the literature is all so wonderful! That part I would not give up. We plan to move onto Sonlight's K core next, probably mid-school year. But I think I'm going to be more relaxed about it, skipping a lot of the comprehension questions and just reading to them. I do think classic literature is just so good for all of us.

And for my 6 yr old, we'll definitely stick with Math-u-see, as she is finally starting to make some forward progress in math and she's enjoying it.

As for most of the other stuff, I'd like to work in Oak Meadow ideas for teaching. We did OM K for awhile last year (until my dd started begging to learn to read and I started researching too much) and it was delightful for my girls. It was so relaxed and they had so much fun. So, I think we'll go back to that.

My older dd could easily unschool. She is interested in so many things and always asking me about this or that, always off exploring something.

My 4.5 yr old, however, is interested in nothing besides watching cartoons on television and being beautiful. She's a challenge. And she loves workbooks because they're easier for her.

Anyway, thanks for all the wise advice here. Bird girl, thanks for the "expert" opinion. I appreciate it.

[skueppers]

My feeling is that engaging in some kind of study of science, history, world cultures, art history, music, etc. in the early grades is important -- but that exactly what is studied and how is not so important.

I have some very vivid memories of things I learned in those subject areas in grades 1-3, but most of them were on "field trips" (whether my family went on the trip or whether it was associated with the school in some way).

As an example, I remember that my favorite artist at that age was Diego Velazquez. I enjoyed viewing reproductions, reading about him in books, and seeing his paintings in person whenever we went somewhere that had one. In order to have a favorite artist, I needed to have been exposed to some art! Later on, I had other favorite artists, like the Della Robbia family and Piet Mondrian. But I'm sure that having been exposed to art, visiting art museums, and having access to books about artists when I was six or seven provided a basis for continued interest as I got older.

It's kind of like travel -- I often hear people say that it's not worth taking small children to major cultural destinations like Rome or Paris because they "won't get anything out of it" or "won't remember it." Well, of course they won't get the same thing out of it that an adult would get out of it, and won't remember things as well as an adult or older child, but that doesn't mean it's a waste of time. Every travel experience makes the next one richer.

[umbrella]

I remember being a little taken aback when my then 8 year old was mixing colors and was surprised to learn which colors they created. But...we did that! We did that in kindergarten, and more than once since then too! I totally covered that! So then I had to give myself a little reality check: do I really expect someone to retail an unimportant detail they learned at the age of 5 and 6? Not that we didn't enjoy mixing and painting though.

[tankgirl73]

This is an exact question I've wrestled with myself.

What if those earlier years get spent touching on those things in ways that whet the appetite for learning more as the years pass?

And this is the conclusion I've come to as well.

I think of it as not so much learning a subject but creating a warmness in the child's heart for a subject so that when they come back to it later they'll approach it with a warm fondness.

I LOVE that description as well.

I am definitely going to do some kind of science and history 'curriculum' with DD -- whether pre-packaged or just on-the-fly -- but the idea will not be for her to MEMORIZE anything. Just to get exposed to it, to make it part of her experience, to give her a chance to integrate it and go further with it if she's interested in it. Then when she's older, it's not something new and foreign -- it will be more detailed, and clarified, and make more sense, and mean more, but it won't be a surprise.

And I totally agree with the idea that reading and writing about history, science, music, etc etc etc, is a better way to learn reading and writing than merely practicing reading and writing! That's very Charlotte-Mason, in fact. Writing is practiced by copying favourite passages from living books (on any subject), which also exposes them to spelling, syntax and grammar, punctuation, sentence and eventually paragraph structure, poetic language, non-poetic language (lol), etc etc.

[LauraLoo]

We fell into a classically inspired form of education specifically because ds had a huge interest in history, geography and science. As I read more about classical, I liked that it spiraled so that each pass went deeper and deeper. Listen to Shakespeare at 8 and it won't phase a child so much to read and analyze when they're 16 because it's familiar and not intimidating.

It's been said before, but kids readily retain what they enjoy learning. I've been surprised that ds has enjoyed certain elements of what we covered this past year that I was certain we would have had to gloss over quickly. He was fascinated with the periodic table and really got into mythology. He didn't memorize the periodic table (at least I don't think so!,) but now he knows that elements are organized and have specific properties - and he likened it to the historic time line. Would he have been ok without chemistry and ancients this year? Sure! But he's definitely going to retain more than just a little of what we covered.

[eilonwy]

Nothing is "necessary," but I'd caution against skipping anything for the sole reason that "they probably won't retain it." Every child is different, and there are some children who will retain history, science, etc in the early grades. The aim of the classical approach is to expose children to these ideas and concepts in advance so that they're familiar and/or feel tenable when they get older and encounter them again, but that's not to say that every child will simply have a vague impression of Ancient Greece or the scientific method. Some of them will absorb every little drop like a sponge, and hold on to it forever. When deciding what is necessary, you have to concentrate on your child and the things that you think are important. For some, it's most important that their child have lots and lots of free play time to explore the world; For some children, that's the highest priority. Fabulous, if that works for you go for it! For others, it's very important that their child be taught formal grammar and for other children learning to apply scientific principles to their latest project is the most important thing. Some kids need to be outdoors and bouncing, and some have a need to be studying and doing formal academic work. It's all very individual, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. For me the question of retention is entirely unimportant in the early elementary years-- there are many other factors to consider.

[briansmama]

Why not guide your dc to the history/geography/science/literature sections in the library and let them choose which books they like? I remember reading in the WTM that they did that when they were starting out.

I've read a lot about classical ed and Charlotte Mason and sort of combine those methods while listening to my ds closely. When I introduced the Native American section to him from the library, he devoured it. When I picked up a hand-me-down copy of Beatrix Potter's stories, he and his little brother loved them. When we checked out the animal encyclopedia, he chose the animals he'd like to learn more about and we made sure to visit the science section at the library.

I like having a blueprint so I know where we're headed and what we're likely to cover, but it's very flexible. So far, this has worked so well for us. I'm finding that my ds begs me to read him books about frogs, math stories, ancient history, etc. He enjoys looking places up on the map because they are places that he's read about and identified with.

Classical ed talks about the 4-year cycle and that while younger children may not remember everything they've read about frogs, for example, they are likely to feel more comfortable with them when they re-visit life science again in the next cycle and it delves a bit deeper. This is the main reason why classical ed and CM methods include these areas of study in the younger grades.

One thing my ds doesn't enjoy is anything that resembles a textbook.

[Momma Aimee]

bumping to come back and read

[lach]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

I think it's wonderful to "learn about" all those things - which is different from "learning" them. A young child is not going to take in the information on the same level as a much older one, so why go through the process of putting them through formal study of it on a lower level and then have to repeat it in broader and deeper ways? Think back about what you learned in elementary school compared to what you learned later - did you really get your important learning of those things in then?

One of the things that really convinced me of the WTM's system is that subjects get covered multiple times. I remember feeling very lost in many subjects when I got to my very academic private high school, and all the kids who had gone to top private elementary schools had learned so much and were so ready to jump into higher level thinking and learning. I had gone to "good" public schools which had bought the philosophy that there's no point teaching anything you'll have to reteach later, so you may as well teach nothing except for feelings and pretty things and self esteem. When I finally read "Raising Lifelong Learners" a few years ago, everything clicked and I finally realized just why we have a nation of completely ignorant high school grads who don't even know the name of their state capital, that it's a state capital and not a state capitol, and what exactly goes on there anyway.

I feel that I learned A LOT as a young child from the things I did with my parents: trips to museums and historic sights, reading non-fiction books with them. I wish there had been a whole lot more of that, and a whole lot less fluff based on some sort of idea that there would be plenty of time to learn things later. There really isn't. Not in any way that actually proves useful for further education.

Anyway, the reason I plan on homeschooling my kids is specifically so that they will actually learn something during these wonderful, sponge-like years.

[Momma Aimee]

as i read this thread --

I have to say i keep thinking of the idea expressed in WTM (i think) about hooks, and how each time you read / learn / study the same subject -- over and over again -- you pick up more, because you have a frame or hooks to hang information on.

I know as i go back and reread homeschooling books, or child dev books, or whatever a 2rd or 4th time -- i get more -- it makes more sense.

now is a 1st or 2nd or even 4th grader going to remember or learn things that are not repeated, maybe maybe not -- but when they encounter them again, in high school, in college, in a historical fiction book they are reading on the beach they are going to think "humm i remember, it is somthing like _____" and then the peices will fall into place easier for them.

i hope

I know personally we are dealing with Theo's SN right now and i don't even feel i know enough to ask questions and i have met with people where i did not ask what i needed to because i had no frame for what they were talking about.