Posted in Teaching Thoughts

A dear friend who is a former librarian BHS (before homeschooling)suggested that something I posted recently on a group list might make good blog material.

I'm assuming she knows what makes for a "good read," so I'll follow her advice. 

There are SO MANY good homeschool programs and curriculum out there.  It's often very hard to choose, and there are so many different aspects to consider within that choice.  Do I need scripted lessons, or am I fine "winging it" on my own?  Do I need a list prepared for me, or will I prepare my own?  How much can I spend?  What suits my child/ren's learning style best? 

With all of these facets, it's not surprising that some folks get a bit muddled between "programs" and "philosophy of education." 

Programs are compelling.  A very popular program, Sonlight, seems to garner some strong adherents.  This literature-based program appeals to so many people because it seems entirely *unlike* anything they have encountered as "history" in their own educational experiences.  So much so that some seem to find it difficult to switch to another program, despite very good reasons to do so, because they feel a loyalty to the program or its method. 

More than once, I've seen people list programs that they like, followed with the query, "What do I do?  I can't do it all!" 

Acknowledging that one "can't do it all" is the first step in a recovery program. 

Most programs are based around a central educational philosophy (see the sidebar for a site-link to teaching method descriptions).  If your likes about various programs seem to cluster around one of these methods, then you've revealed your teaching method or philosophy.

Let me provide a realistic conundrum (drawn from my own experiences, so as not to offend or embarrass anyone else!). 

I've always like a literature-based approach to education.  It seems to work well for my daughter, too (which is optimal, of course).  I've tried Sonlight, used books recommended from Ambleside, and I love the concept of multa non multum (less, but more) from The Latin-Centered Curriculum.

From these sources, I've pulled various materials and cobbled together my own history.

Understandably, history is my strong suit.  But it is possible to combine aspects of various, compatible, programs to create your own mix, based upon a single learning style - or even multiple styles if needed. 

Another thing to consider is that a teaching style is just that, a style.  And, as our wardrobes know, styles do change.  In this case, it might not be a style change that is needed as much as it is a break.

There's no reason why you can't have a general learning style for most of the year, but take breaks to do things differently. 

We intersperse lapbooking, which is more crafty and hands-on than our usual studies, during the year.  Sometimes it's related to our regularly scheduled work, but sometimes it's entirely learning-for-fun. 

One last thing to consider, however, comes to me from the book Climbing Parnassus by by Tracey Lee Simmons.  While addressing the need for a return to the classical methodology, Simmons does point out that teaching our children values, thinking skills, and the classics (for their cultural relevance if nothing else) are the primary goals of education.  A student trained in this manner will be able to learn anything else with little trouble.

When you think it through, it makes a lot of sense.  Most of the materials we spend time imparting to our child/ren could be classified as "information."  If you can google it, it's information.

The real meat of our teaching comes from our discussions with our child/ren.  It comes from passing on our values and beliefs and applying those to the information we read. That's the stuff you can't learn or teach once the opportunity is past.

Therein lies the soul of all educational philosophies.