After teaching school for 17 years, 15 in the public schools in Oregon, I knew that I would want to homeschool my own children. Part of it was the fact that we never had time to do the fun stuff (I distinctly remember seeing the idea for a big wall mural of ocean animals one year while teaching half day kinder), part is that the best part of teaching is seeing the kids' eyes light up when they finally understand something and why would I want to give that up to someone else? However, the biggest part is the teaching, both what is being taught, as well as the methods.
Our oldest is newly 5 and finishing up Junior Kindergarten with Memoria Press (side note, I love what I've seen and used of their curriculum!). We recently received the boxes with the kindergarten curriculum for next year and it's so amazing! I feel like it's a breath of fresh air after the way I was required to teach my last decade in the public schools.
I was taught to read with phonics, mostly because I begged my mom to teach me before kindergarten (I think she was desperate to get me to stop bugging her and maybe I could entertain my little sisters if I knew how), so she taught me the letter sounds and how to blend them together, because that's how you read. I then went to a private school that taught phonics. It wasn't until I was in junior high or high school before I realized that there was another way out there that people were taught. When I started signing up for my elementary teacher education courses, I was excited to see how to teach all the subjects I'd enjoyed as a kid, as well as how to make math more enjoyable for my future students. It was very disillusioning to me when, after completing a course, I was no closer to knowing how to teach a subject than when I started it.
My math for elementary teachers was heavy on the "new" way of teaching that was supposed to get students who did not have high math intelligence (based on the multiple intelligences theory, that has since been debunked, as I understand it), to use their intelligence in math. This basically turned into having the students write a paragraph explaining what they were thinking when they solved the problem. I would have been considered to have high verbal/linguistic intelligence and this style was geared towards people with my intelligence. I hated it! It took what felt like a million times longer to solve one problem and seemed to make it infinitely more complex. It didn't help me solve the problem better, just took longer. There were also "new" ways to solve the problems, that were supposed to work better for students who were not math minded, rather than the traditional algorithms. This annoyed me to no end because the new methods seemed more clunky, took longer, and didn't make sense. Perhaps I was more math minded than I thought, but the traditional algorithms seem faster, easier, and make sense.
All I remember from my social studies for elementary teachers class was creating a simulation (not what it was called, since this was back in 2002, but it was that idea). The teacher/professor was one of my favorites in the Ed department, but I don't remember anything about how and when to use primary sources or even if primary sources were even discussed! Looking back, this seems like a bit of a glaring omission!
Reading for elementary teachers was a dud as well. We spent the time working on penmanship (the one useful thing we did!), as well as how to use a book to connect to other subjects and "extend the learning". Absolutely nothing about how to actually teach a student to read! It appeared to me as if our professor assumed that we'd all be in upper elementary classes with students who were at grade level or above. I remember thinking about what to do if I ended up working in the lower grades.
When I got my first job it was in a dual language school and I muddled through, since I'd never actually been taught how to read in Spanish, other than learning the letter names and sounds when they differed from English. The curriculum we had more or less taught Spanish phonics. I say more or less because there were plenty of sight words thrown in (I have a whole rant about the non-necessity of sight words in Spanish and how ridiculous the idea is, but I'll throw that out here later), but this was my first introduction to Spanish sílabas or syllables. The basic idea is that you teach the vowels first, then add a consonant, usually m, and make syllables with it (ma, me, mi, mo, and mu), then put the syllables together to form words. Amo a mi mamá. (I love my mom.) is often the first sentence a Spanish speaking kid learns to read. Then you the next consonant and its syllables and so on until you have all the simple syllables, then blends, etc. My third year teaching I was introduced to another kinder teacher who'd started a whole program that systematically taught Spanish reading to the kids and taught the parents how to help their children. My students took off! I loved it because it made sense and worked. The majority of my students had great success with it. It was nothing like what I'd been prepared for in college, it was much better. When I came back from Ecuador I was in a district that said they taught phonics, but somehow it never seemed to stick with the students. I wasn't sure why. Then I moved back to my original district and the curriculum had changed, there wasn't the systematic program as an option. It was a very different experience, and not in a good way! Two of the 4 years I taught there were in kinder and if felt like an uphill battle to teach phonics to my students. I even had the same assistant as at my previous school when my students did so well. We tried to implement as many strategies as we could from before, but it felt as if that was a problem. While I was gone, there had been a huge shift in accountability to the rest of your grade level team, so that everyone was no longer doing their own thing, but they planned together and then implemented the plan in their individual classes. Before, as long as we were getting the students to the standards, there didn't seem to be much caring as to how. This new change sounds great in theory, but it depends on your team. I worked with some very nice ladies who didn't know put an emphasis on phonics. They would say they taught it, but it was light and general, not a focus. Our reading units were based on a book for the week. The curriculum had activities that went along with the book, but we had to choose and adapt them for our school/classroom. This worked a little better in English, but was the complete opposite of a phonetic approach for Spanish. I remember one week we read Snowy Day and made up a booklet to show comprehension of it. The sentences were simple in English (The coat is red. or something like that), but not at all in Spanish (La chaqueta es roja.) and the word coat was left out and the students had to fill it in. In all of the sentences the word left out was a much more phonetically complex word than in English. This was supposed to be a whole class activity, but I knew my students would struggle with it being a mostly independent activity. I chose to do it in a small group setting and the other teachers were not pleased. We were all frustrated! I realize now, those teachers had never been taught phonics, so the disconnect was understandable. Two of them were very likely not taught to read phonetically, but with whole language (sight words), and all three attended teacher college after me, but well before the science of reading became a thing. I finally realized what the difference between the previous school and this one was. When I taught kinder before, it was half day and the majority of the time was spent on centers where the kids would practice math and letter sounds/reading while my assistant and I would meet with small groups working at different levels. Before this time we'd have a math lesson and a bit of a reading comprehension lesson, but it would be shorter than the math and not the focus of the day. I used it to interest the kids in reading and books, but it wasn't my focus of the day. This other school was flipped. The majority of the reading block was to be spent on reading comprehension and just a little bit on phonics. No wonder my students had a hard time! The focus wasn't on learning how to read, but what to do with reading. Kind of hard to know what to do with reading when you can't read! That's not to say listening comprehension isn't important, it is, supremely so! However, it isn't what teaches you how to read, phonics does that.
So, back to opening up my new kinder curriculum we're going to use, it has the focus on teaching phonics, with read aloud/listening comprehension and integral part, but not the majority of the time, nor the main focus! It's such a blessing to be able to go back to the method I know works and be able to use it for my boys.