Swann Family = 10 Children with MA at age 16! Book Review & Discussion Thread

[Korrale4kq]

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.

[MummyRoo]

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

[Wolfwind]

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.

[Wolfwind]

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.

[nee1]

Wolfwind,

Charlotte Mason makes a point about ``light’’ reading in Volume 1, pages 175-77. She said:

``Dr. Arnold's Knowledge as a Child.–– 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).

Thoughts?

[Wolfwind]

My question has to do with where she says "the diluted twaddle that is commonly thrust upon children" and "lesson-books with pretty pictures and easy talk, almost as good as story-books."  The lesson books, thrust upon them, would be high-quality literature.  But what if they choose to read twaddle-style story-books during their free time?  What's wrong with story books?  I read plenty of classic literature as a kid, but I also liked The Saddle Club.  I don't think it's a problem; I don't want to have to heavily restrict their library books that are read outside of school.

[nee1]

Agreed.  But having a good stash of good literature available for their free reading will acclimatize their reading taste buds to that. One of the things I've learnt from Robinson is having high quality literature for them to read in their free time. E.g., there are loads of very interesting high quality literature on the RC book list that might interest a child during free reading time. Further, one of the reasons the Robinson kids turned out so well-educated was because they had abundance of good literature to read during both school time and free reading time - there was no twaddle. And as Tamsyn mentioned, Queen Elizabeth did no light reading. I personally I'm not a fan of twaddle -  life is too short to spend reading things that don't count and educate. Also check out this link on Amblesideonline - http://www.amblesideonline.org/QualityofBookSelection.shtml.

[Wolfwind]

Hmm.  Maybe I'll restrict what we own to non-twaddle, and only make library trips once a week.  There's a suggestion in The Well-Trained Mind of requiring one book from each of several categories as well as any other books the child chooses on any library visit; maybe I'll use that to reduce the amount of twaddle as well.  But I don't want to make all their library books pass my judgment of whether they're high enough quality; that job just seems distasteful to me.  Hopefully all the good literature they read will acclimatize them, as you said, and they'll choose good things.  But I won't obsess over light, fluffy books sometimes, just like I'm not going to follow the Robinson "no sugar whatsoever" rule.

[seastar]

I am really enjoying this thread. It is a lot to digest. The one thing I have taken on board already is no sugar for the kids. Sophie (almost 3 years old) is generally pretty well behaved. However, after attending a birthday party a few weeks ago where she ate an entire cupcake, I noticed a deterioration in her ability to cope with challenges and frustration. I decided to cut out sugar to see what difference, if any, it would make. Well, I am delighted to say that she is on much more of an even keel since then.

Now, if I could only cut out my own chocolate addiction! Oh, I am also feeling ashamed of my internet/facebook/brillkids forum addiction!

[Wolfwind]

seastar, I agree that cutting out desserts or other things where sugar is the main ingredient is totally worth it.  But we have honey in our homemade granola and sugar in our home canned jellies and I'm not cutting those out of my child's diet!  Maybe I'm overthinking the "no sugar" rule, but if we make a smoothie of yogurt and frozen fruit, I don't feel guilty putting a teaspoon of sugar in it.  And we do eat desserts at Grandma's house!

[Mandabplus3]

So after a few more years experience with the twaddle that's available....here is the key quote from nee1 lovely link

A child can learn much of good and evil, right and wrong, and about people and their various motivations and how they think and what sorts of people make up the world - and he won't get this from books that dumb down the language and leave out all the descriptive language and characterization.

I think that sums it up beautifully. In reading the twaddle the children will not be learning good character building skills, will not be made to think about motivations, will not be challenged by the reading level, they will not learn to copy a complex writing style, they will not internalise good vocabulary and they will most definitely learn bad manners and disrespect for their parents!

However please don't think for a moment that nothing written this century is not GOOD quality literature. We have many picture books, beginner novels and novels that are recently written and still worth reading. They may not cover all the bases but they have their own merit. Fr example the magic tree house series might not use complex vocabulary but kids learn a lot from it and they learn good morals and it creates good minds eye pictures. Babysitters club may have good morals and perhaps you want your children to be entrepreneurs? I think it holds little more of value    I think reading the entire set would be a waste of your child's time ( there are a ridiculous number of them now!) but a few wont hurt too much.
My advice would be to screen as much as you can. Many of today books ( especially the novels made for boys age 6-13) are total crap that actively teaches disrespect for elders and friends. Limit the twaddle and you will see improved choices in more than just book choice area. Remove it if your children are homeschooled if you like. Good luck removing it if they attend school! Here we have set time for reading the classics and if they want to read twaddle they can do that in their play time. Usually they don't want to read it that badly.  its a compromise we can all live with. I allow them choice within the classics.
Oh and not all the classics are all that perfect either. Some have poor sentence structure and lack of punctuation. Some are so simple in language they are no better than our modern options. But those are few and far between, no one said you had to finish every book your start. 
As for sugar well it sends my kids hypo so I use it when they need it. They are active kids remember. For 3 hours of gym training a slurpy is a good thing! It is heavily moderated here. One of my kids is very emotional from both TV and sugar ( and probably preservatives) so if she goes cranky we go healthy! Easy fix 

[Korrale4kq]

Even many classics, such as Frankenstein were sensationist pulp, twaddle, back in their day. Now many consider this a classic.

[MummyRoo]

This thread has really made me sit and think about the quality of the literature I have available. I have been thinking about a CM-style education for a year or so now, but only now has it really 'clicked' for me what twaddle is. I understood that challenging literature is great, but for free reading I was happy to allow whatever my son chose to read. I have even picked up a couple of sets of books that are popular with young boys when they were really cheap - one of which was Horrid Henry. I know my brother loved them in primary school but now, thinking about the actual content of the books makes me cringe. The whole series is about a naughty boy doing naughty things, whilst mocking his well-behaved, high achieving brother. WHY would I want my son to read that?! 

I know the Enid Blyton books might be considered 'twaddle' on a literary level (I whizzed through one a day when I was eight or nine so they couldn't have been that challenging), but at least characters are polite - or learn to be - and the morals are good. That is the sort of 'easy reading' that I would allow on occasion. 

I'm now feeling more prepared to purge our house of twaddle! I might even go through my own books... 

[Korrale4kq]

I am not a fan of Curious George. Every book says how he is a good monkey. Then he does such naughty things. And at the every story there is a reward. James was getting so confused when I was reading the stories to him. He kept telling me that "naughty monkey" was being bad again. We gave up reading them.

I am completely for opening a dialogue about not what to do. But the thought of painting on walls is not even something that James would consider unless he reads about it elsewhere. So it is also giving him ideas of thins hat could be fun to do.
I don't beleive he has the self discipline to always do good yet.

[PokerDad]

When I watched that video of A. Robinson, I sort of grinned because of his hard stance on TV and sugar. These are the two big things I've been working on eliminating from my personal habit and have been ardent with PokerMom about (she's come some ways on the TV, but she'll make me earn its elimination, let me tell you).

I had gotten to the point where I was drinking a soda per day and munching on sweets periodically. That might sound temperate, but it wasn't - and really could only be seen that way from a US perspective (where our waistlines are bulging more and more at epidemic proportions). After reading, "The Power of Habit," I had some ideas on how to curb the cravings and how to get rid of the soda addiction. It turned out, this was a keystone type of habit (where it helps you build up to other habits) and I dropped 20 pounds.

Needless to say, sugar, as it's consumed by the typical person, will not be allowed in my house. I will allow sugar - but I will be very cautious about it.

The television is still plugged in, but I want to get rid of it so badly. I have an agreement to rid ourselves of the paid programming if I use torrents to download (unbelievably bad) her favorite shows. So I'll have to earn it, but in reading this thread, what I already knew is staring me in the face - leave the TV on at my own demise.

We were doing smoothies every day until Cub developed some food allergies that made it a bit more difficult. I found there was no need to add any sugar if I mixed it right (bananas & oranges for sweetness)

As for children's books: right now we do read curious george and have since he was born, but some stories are better than others. He mostly "forgets" to stay where he's supposed to and things like that; many of his transgressions (from the stories I've read) are accidental or the result of not thinking things through - I suppose that could offer an opportunity to discuss, but obviously if he does something in the story that would give a kid a bad idea, then it's just not worth it - which is why I had already banned "5 silly monkeys" - I do have 8 silly monkeys that someone bought for us and it's so-so but I'll stop reading it when he's about a year old. Right now I can get away with a lot more!

I recently finished reading "The Dumbest Generation" and in it, the author discusses somewhere (sorry couldn't find the page) how the typical children's book exceeds the average conversation among college grads in terms of frequency of harder words. I thought this was interesting and perhaps worth a mention here as part of the discussion.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214769
• Latest: Meobi

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 649
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 483
• Total: 483