Homeschooling curricula I dislike

[Vort]

Homeschooling allows great flexibility in how you present the various curricula, and there are niches to cater to every whim. One very large niche is "Christian" homeschooling. In general, I find these various books to fall somewhere between mediocre-but-acceptable to downright awful.

• "Christian" math books seem to get the job done reasonably well. Mainly, their examples are maudlin and their writing overtly preachy. And seriously, does Jesus multiplying bread and fishes really have anything to do with learning the times tables?

  ALTERNATIVE: How about the Saxon Math series? They are excellent. For that matter, there are several very good mathematics series that go from counting on number lines up through integral calculus, linear algebra, and beginning ordinary differential equations.

• "Christian" history books are, perhaps surprisingly, not always awful. In a sense, they are almost a breath of fresh air compared with the relentlessly secular and anti-Western bias of, um, well, let's see, pretty much every other modern history text available. But predictably, they are quite Eurocentric, and the constant negative references many of them make to the medieval RC Church are off-putting. And they are certainly no friend to Mormonism. On the balance, I don't have much use for them.

  ALTERNATIVE: I don't know. I haven't researched this. Hillyer's classic Child's History of the World is a can't-miss starting point.

• "Christian" science is almost an oxymoron, once you get past the most basic physics and chemistry. My daughter was working her way through a "Christian" science workbook (that's "Christian" science, not "Christian Science") and was confused by some parts. No wonder. They were simply nonsense. Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs! There wasn't room on the ark! And let's not even talk about their discussion on evolution (devil spawn! heresy!). I almost took the book from her and threw it away, but she wanted to finish it. So I told her she could finish it, but don't pay much attention or give much credence to the nonsense therein. I told her we would learn some real science later.

  ALTERNATIVE: ANYTHING! ANYTHING! JUST FIND A SCIENCE BOOK SOMEWHERE!

• "Christian" English and reading, like math, is overly preachy, and their literature selection is not always compelling. But it does a reasonable job of teaching grammar and spelling and such.

  ALTERNATIVE: Read to and with your kids. Oral scripture reading every night, and the kids start as soon as they're able to speak. They learn to read by reading scriptures over a period of two or three years, not as a formal exercise in learning and decoding letters. Make their bedtime 8:00, but allow them to stay up until 9:00 as long as they are reading. Let them read whatever the heck they want: romance novels (non-scummy, of course), comic books, cereal boxes. Just as long as they are reading something.

  Reading is natural. Make it a natural thing. No formal curriculum necessary, at least at first.

I know some Latter-day Saints use such curricula for their homeschools. As long as they find it sufficient, then whatever. On the whole, it's probably better than, and almost certainly no worse than, the kids would end up getting in government-run schools. But for myself and my family, I'm not much impressed by them.

[NeuroTypical]

I've had similar experiences. We do a co-op held at the local mega-church. Math, choir, ballet, public speaking, writing, spanish - gogogo. Colorado history was fine. Anything with the word 'geology' or 'earth' or 'science' in it? Pass.

We thought a 'how nature works around us' class would be fine, and it was for the most part. I went on one of their field trips to a local nature center, and one of the mommies was trying to explain how fossilization works. She seemed to be struggling and hesitant, as if the kids were asking her where murderers came from, and looked at me. I said something noncommittal about "If I understand it correctly, something gets buried in the mud, then the mud turns to rock over time, then whatever got buried in it sort of just gets replaced by a different kind of rock too". The poor woman was nodding, but she looked like she was having to hear about her grandfather dying. She seemed relieved that her kids seemed to accept what I said as properly boring.

Then as we were leaving, she pointed out an old tree trunk sticking out of a river bank to her kids and said "Look kids - that tree is fossilizing!" I got the distinct impression that her kids were getting more and more used to just not listening to mom about certain subjects.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[MorningStar]

Here's a story problem: Johnny steals 3 candybars. Timmy steals two. Will they both burn in Hell?

[Vort]

Here's a story problem: Johnny steals 3 candybars. Timmy steals two. Will they both burn in Hell?

Only Timmy will. Johnny is saved.

[Vort]

I suppose what bothers me is to produce a curriculum that exhibits "Christian" beliefs for the sake of being "Christian". It strikes me as phony. Can you imagine a purportedly "LDS" math book that asks how many people attended stake temple night or how much flour each of Brigham's wives would have received? Or worse yet, a geology course based on Biblical accounts of the flood of Noah? Or an American ancient history course based on Book of Mormon writings?

EDIT: To be clear, I believe the Book of Mormon to be a very literal history of a very real people. But I also subscribe to what is sometimes called the "Limited Geographic Model", in which the entire narrative of the Book of Mormon is thought to have taken place in a confined area, perhaps no more than a hundred or so miles across. Extrapolating this to a geological or anthropological history of the Americas would be absurd, and that's my point.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Vort

[annewandering]

I like three things you do over all the rest. You let your daughter continue the book. That helps her to understand what people believe. Two the hour of reading after bedtime. Reading the Book Of Mormon. My youngest learned to read from us taking turns reading the scripture every morning while we drove the twenty miles to the school bus.

Of everything we can teach our kids to read is the most important. With that knowledge they can learn anything. I let my kids play and chew on books from infancy. We never took books from them saying 'no!' and we put books in reachable places. Not up high and protected from kids. They grew up being comfortable with them and developed a great love of reading, on the whole.

[Irishcolleen]

If a non-mormon used your tone about LDS literature you would probably accuse them of being "anti-Mormon". We homeschooled our children. We have one in high school, one in college, and one out of college and in a career. We use Christian curriculum. My oldest two received ACT scores that were so high they earned large scholarships to private schools. All three excel in math and science. They all have a strong faith in God and lead moral lives.

BTW, Saxon doesn't give kids enough background in geometry or calculus. I recommend Teaching Textbooks, Jacobs Geometry and Ask Dr. Callahan.

[NeuroTypical]

If a non-mormon used your tone about LDS literature you would probably accuse them of being "anti-Mormon".

Heh - not necessarily. When someone approaches me about LDS literature, they can't get a word in edgewise because I'm too busy complaining about how most LDS authors aren't that great. Our movies tend to be worse. Our church is producing better these years, but stuff our members put out for an LDS audience? Ugh. (Although I did like "The Other Side of Heaven".)

My wife checked out an homeschool co-op for LDS folks a few years back - we passed on the opportunity in favor of others. We've been to a secular-themed co-op, one run by Nazarenes, and our current one with the mega-church folks.

[Vort]

If a non-mormon used your tone about LDS literature you would probably accuse them of being "anti-Mormon".

Probably not:

• In the first place, I know of precious little "LDS-themed" literature. (EDIT: I mean specifically homeschooling literature. There is quite a bit of general literature written for an LDS audience, some of it quite good, most of it not.)
• Secondly, if it used examples as awkward and contrived as the "Christian" curricula I have experienced, I would be first in line to reject it, as I already explicitly mentioned.
• Thirdly, I am Christian, so criticizing poorly constructed textbooks that exist merely because they are supposedly "Christian" can hardly be called anti-Christian. My wife and I run an explicitly Christian-themed homeschool, but find the so-called "Christian" themed texts to be poor-to-middling.

I am not sure what part of my "tone" you took as anti-Christian. I am anti-stupidity, anti-bad-science, anti-narrow-worldview, and anti-contrived-examples, but most certainly not anti-Christian.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Vort

[Dravin]

"Christian" science is almost an oxymoron, once you get past the most basic physics and chemistry. My daughter was working her way through a "Christian" science workbook (that's "Christian" science, not "Christian Science") and was confused by some parts. No wonder. They were simply nonsense. Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs! There wasn't room on the ark! And let's not even talk about their discussion on evolution (devil spawn! heresy!). I almost took the book from her and threw it away, but she wanted to finish it. So I told her she could finish it, but don't pay much attention or give much credence to the nonsense therein. I told her we would learn some real science later.

What gets me is you don't have to believe the theories to teach them, if your child is going to operate in the scientific world they need to understand the theories of the scientific world. If for instance you want your child to grow up an be a doctor they're going to have to take biology courses and they're going to have to learn about evolution regardless of if they believe it true or not. Failing to teach the theory disadvantages the child.

[Vort]

What gets me is you don't have to believe the theories to teach them, if your child is going to operate in the scientific world they need to understand the theories of the scientific world. If for instance you want your child to grow up an be a doctor they're going to have to take biology courses and they're going to have to learn about evolution regardless of if they believe it true or not. Failing to teach the theory disadvantages the child.

Agreed. I happen to have no problems with organic evolution and assume it's true, but even if it's not true, it's a scientific theory, not Satan worship.

[annewandering]

Well you teach common ideas but dont have to refrain from giving your opinion on them do you? The cool thing about reading is they can explore the ideas and form their own opinions making them actually in the advantage over others who are only taught the most popular idea.

[Vort]

Well you teach common ideas but dont have to refrain from giving your opinion on them do you? The cool thing about reading is they can explore the ideas and form their own opinions making them actually in the advantage over others who are only taught the most popular idea.

I consider it "inoculation". I am all about telling my kids what's going on, especially when they are sure to be exposed to it anyway. I unmistakably give them my take on it, but I also try to give them a fair and reasonably impartial analysis of what the "other side" says. I am quick to point out to them truths in the "other side" and tell them there are good points, but then explain why I think those points are ultimately wrong.

So far, I rarely get disagreement from my children, as would be expected with teenage and younger kids. I do occasionally get push-back, and I assume that they will disagree with my viewpoints more as they get older. This is fine; I don't deceive myself that all my thoughts are right. But I hope they at least have the tools to see the truth in otherwise specious arguments, and simultaneously not allow a sugar-coating of truth to convince them to accept the main mass of lies, as for example many do on the question of "homosexual marriage".

It also helps that I trust that my kids are at least as smart as I am and probably better-educated, so their opinions are likely to be better than mine were at that age or stage of development.

[Dravin]

Well you teach common ideas but dont have to refrain from giving your opinion on them do you? The cool thing about reading is they can explore the ideas and form their own opinions making them actually in the advantage over others who are only taught the most popular idea.

They'll hear about it from you by 'osmosis' if nothing else. Look at it this way, if they were going to public school they'd be hearing about your thoughts of particular theories in conjunction to learning the theories, there isn't a problem with letting them know, "I personally don't believe in geologic ages." When it becomes a problem is when you allow you opinion to take over the teaching of the theory such that you're basically teaching a straw-man of the theory instead of the theory itself.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Dravin

[MorningStar]

If a non-mormon used your tone about LDS literature you would probably accuse them of being "anti-Mormon". We homeschooled our children. We have one in high school, one in college, and one out of college and in a career. We use Christian curriculum. My oldest two received ACT scores that were so high they earned large scholarships to private schools. All three excel in math and science. They all have a strong faith in God and lead moral lives.

BTW, Saxon doesn't give kids enough background in geometry or calculus. I recommend Teaching Textbooks, Jacobs Geometry and Ask Dr. Callahan.

I would be annoyed with curriculum that used all things LDS in examples. I don't even tend to like Mormon themed movies made by Mormons for other Mormons.

[annewandering]

I see nothing wrong with leaving science to scientists. They arent always right but are in the business of trying to be right.

By the way I love geology. It is quite fascinating but much is left open to interpretation when it comes to age. Still they are getting better all the time with figuring out time spans.

[Irishcolleen]

What gets me is you don't have to believe the theories to teach them, if your child is going to operate in the scientific world they need to understand the theories of the scientific world. If for instance you want your child to grow up an be a doctor they're going to have to take biology courses and they're going to have to learn about evolution regardless of if they believe it true or not. Failing to teach the theory disadvantages the child.

I quite agree. People need to know every side of an argument to make informed decisions.

[NightSG]

I quite agree. People need to know every side of an argument to make informed decisions.

Exactly, and to a great extent that also means having the background information available to understand all sides of an argument. That means learning from multiple sources, even if you have to use a calculus textbook that doesn't use calculating the volume of an oval baptismal font as an example.

[Guest]

I don't get this "Christian" curricula. Are you saying that all the examples are something from the Bible? That's silly, isn't it? I mean, what's un-Christian about calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle formed by the flagpole and its shadow on the ground at 3PM?

[volgadon]

For math I prefer the Lobachevsky method: Plagiarise, plagiarise! Let no man's work evade your eyes!

[volgadon]

ALTERNATIVE: I don't know. I haven't researched this. Hillyer's classic Child's History of the World is a can't-miss starting point.

1066 and All That.

[Guest]

[*]"Christian" English and reading, like math, is overly preachy, and their literature selection is not always compelling. But it does a reasonable job of teaching grammar and spelling and such.

ALTERNATIVE: Read to and with your kids. Oral scripture reading every night, and the kids start as soon as they're able to speak. They learn to read by reading scriptures over a period of two or three years, not as a formal exercise in learning and decoding letters. Make their bedtime 8:00, but allow them to stay up until 9:00 as long as they are reading. Let them read whatever the heck they want: romance novels (non-scummy, of course), comic books, cereal boxes. Just as long as they are reading something.

Reading is natural. Make it a natural thing. No formal curriculum necessary, at least at first.

Yes, reading is just a natural thing. I have this no-expense-spared attitude with reading... that is, I'll go buy tons of books on a topic my kids are interested in... so they have a whole slew of books on snakes - fact and fiction. I got them the entire collection of The Warriors series... there's like 40+ of them when they went through their Cats stage.

So now, I've learned I can get them interested in reading the classics if I can get it to coincide with their interests... like when they went through a Sharks stage I got them Moby **** (yes, he's not a shark) with the Shark books and they read it!

They even got into reading poetry when we got the Kids Pick the Funniest Poems. They love reciting them even! They find them hilarious.

But, I feel that reading books is not enough. Critical thinking is derived from challenging their understanding of the books they read. This is easier when you have an easy Fable which has a moral lesson, then you can discuss the moral and it's simple. But, it gets tricky when you got a 10-year-old reading Tom Sawyer.

I'm hoping my kids getting used to reading silly poetry would translate to them wanting to read the Shakesperean poems. Those can be so awesome to discuss in the critical thinking manner.

[Vort]

1066 and All That.

As I said, it's a starting point. And there is nothing wrong with English history, especially when you are of English ancestry, living in a country that started life as an English colony and is filled with people of English ancestry. Great Britain did pretty much span the globe in the not-too-distant past.

[volgadon]

As I said, it's a starting point. And there is nothing wrong with English history, especially when you are of English ancestry, living in a country that started life as an English colony and is filled with people of English ancestry. Great Britain did pretty much span the globe in the not-too-distant past.

I wasn't entirely serious (or not entirely joking), but 1066 is a brilliant send up of how history is taught.