My Father’s World

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Marsha
    Participant

    I have been seriously looking at this curriculum for my boys. I like that all children can be combined and that it is God centered. We probably wouldn’t use it right away since I plan to use Five in a Row next year. Since it is a Charlotte Mason curriculum I thought I would ask about it here. Anyone using MFW presently or in the past?

    Marsha

    Bookworm
    Participant

    Marsha,

    We tried Exploring Countries and Cultures one year, and used K at the same time. One thing to note is that they often don’t recommend combining all children into one program. A friend of mine went to a conference with me one year and the authors recommended that she use THREE programs. 🙂

    We liked some of the activities and things that were in the program. We did have a few problems, and we would likely not use them again. The program seemed very slow-moving to us. In the spring, in the later months, they seemed to “run out of” activities to do, it was mostly just reading by then. And there was not nearly enough “meat” and almost no science. But we couldn’t afford to add much else after we bought the packages. Also, the children were bored, especially by spring when the stuff seemed to really slow down.

    I think it is a reasonably good program but it just wasn’t a good fit for us. We really tend to chafe under programs with weekly schedules already printed out, because we are always either behind (Sonlight) or bored (MFW) but then ditching the weekly schedules seems silly when you just spent all that money on them. 🙂

    I hope you get lots of opinions and don’t have to just rely on mine!

    Michelle D

    Marsha
    Participant

    Michelle,

    Three programs at once! Yikes! I suppose that is doable. My two oldest could follow one plan and two youngest another. I can relate about buying a program and not using the weekly schedule. Isn’t that why we buy it? I bought Winterpromise Animal Worlds because my sons are very interested in animals. The program does have wonderful resources and living books, but the IG is overwhelming. There are TOO many resources and the layout is confusing. So lots of money went to waste. At least MFW is cheaper!

    Marsha

    I did the same thing when we did Animals and Their Worlds. It was a great program, but the LA was not very CM and overwhelming, plus it was so choppy! I did keep all the books though and am using them in a FIAR type way with my four year old. She likes to do little narrations the first time through and then will frequently re-narrate them to anyone who will listen.

    Shanna
    Participant

    We used it one year. I did not care for it. I did not find the books to be the “living” books I was looking for, if that makes sense. Some of the books are very DKish or Usbornish. I am probably not much help we just didnt care for it.

    Suzq
    Participant

    We use My Father’s World and we enjoy it. I work better if I have some things laid out for me and I don’t have to choose every book we read. At the same time the book lists in the back of the manual are appealing as well becasue we can pick and choose which ones to use or add others that we like. I cannot speak about Exploring Countries and Cultures because we did not use that, nor did we use any of the younger programs. We started out in Creation to the Greeks, Rome to Reformation, and now we are in Exploration to 1850. I believe they intended these manuals to be used for 3rd to 8th grade. Any children in that age group would be in the same period of history. The high school curriculum is written for independent study by the student with a meeting once a week with mom. Another plus for us is that we are in the same year as a couple of other families around here so we co-op together using the science in MFW. I think you can use it in a Charlotte Mason way very easily. Narrations for the readings, composer study is built right in, and MFW uses God and the History of Art for art. I just look ahead to see what artists will be covered that year and choose 3 or 4 of them and then do picture study with those artists. We also liked the way the Bible is used as part of the history and not a separate subject. Plus a good portion of their earnings go to Bible translation so I enjoy supporting that. AS I said before I need to have some of the work of curriculum planning done for me, otherwise I don’t get anywhere. So it is a good fit for us. That all being said, this site has great book choices and has some guides now too which I am sure would be just as handy.

    hsmomof5
    Member

    I absolutely agree with Suzq. I love the open and go method and MFW is well planned. It is a real time saver to have all subjects taught with the same curriculum and having them so well planned. We enjoying it very much. I have found great support and info on the MFW message boards which is linked on the website. There are also yahoo groups and sub-categorized yahoo groups based on the year that you are using. MFW can be made as gentle or as rigorous as the user would like by the use of the book baskets which are for enrichment. My sons love the many hands-on activities and I feel as if I’m learning right along with them. MFW earlier programs are individualized so there are separate years for K, 1st and 2nd but the other programs are for 3rd-8th with adaptations created for 2nd graders so they can learn with older siblings. MFW has year 1 of the high school curriculum written and the other years are coming very soon. MFW does start gentle in the earlier years but it builds upon itself each year. I think you could research it more on the forum and samples on the site in order to find out if it will meet the needs and learning styles of your children along with your goals.

    Marsha
    Participant

    Thanks to everyone. I am in prayer about whether to use the program or not. I like what I have heard and read so far.

    Marsha

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • The topic ‘My Father’s World’ is closed to new replies.