This past year, I decided to break from the curriculum we’d been using from the very beginning and try a few new things. I was trying to find relief during a particularly busy stage of life, and trying to wrap my head around my son’s 7th grade year and his changing academic needs. So we took a detour from Tapestry of Grace and tried Heart of Dakota for a few months.
All in all, we used Heart of Dakota (three different guides) for about 14-18 weeks, one child going a little further than the others. I dropped my youngest’s guide first: the pace was just too slow. Months into the program, and our Pilgrims still hadn’t left Holland. Compared to what we were used to (Story of the World and Tapestry), it felt like a snail’s pace, and my voracious first grader wanted more. So did I.
I hung on a little longer with the older two, trying to adapt the guide and make changes that fit us best. But the Heart of Dakota guides really aren’t made for the kind of customizing I was wanting. The changes made the guide confusing; it was just too restrictive for our style. So here’s a little more about Heart of Dakota, and why we ended up right back where we started—with Tapestry of Grace.
Heart of Dakota review
Specific Guides
The specific guides with detailed daily plans were what first drew me to Heart of Dakota. The thought of having all the planning done for me was appealing during a time of homeschooling when I felt particularly stretched and tired. Each day is laid out in a two-page spread, with assignments and directions for each subject included. It was the first time my fifth grader had ever had anything so clearly laid out; I normally plan by the week rather than by the day. She flourished with this type of planning; her ADHD and Dyslexia needs were met so beautifully. Until the plans themselves really didn’t benefit us.
I really disliked the grammar/writing suggestions, and I preferred our math (RightStart) to theirs (Singapore). Those were the first changes I made. Then, the approach to Bible study was also not a good fit for us, so we changed that too. She only liked some of the suggested history projects, so we didn’t always use those ideas. She had her own program that was working for spelling and vocabulary. Before long, we were only using history. Then, even those book choices were becoming a problem (see more on that below.)
For my oldest, the plans were too much. He was left with so much to do each day that he felt no control over his schedule and began having anxiety of his own (his ADHD executive function struggles are the exact opposite of his sister’s). He preferred having a week’s worth of assignments that he got to schedule on his own. He had no way of knowing how long each assignment would take him, and his lack of control and struggle with time awareness stressed him out. If science didn’t go perfectly, he’d end up stuck on an experiment for an hour longer than he anticipated. Again, my first solution was to try to tweak the guide and make adjustments. But the guides just really aren’t set up to do this easily; it became confusing for both of us.
Pros: Specific guides provide relief from intensive planning.
Cons: Specific guides limit your flexibility and ability to customize.
Lots of Variety
Poetry, classical music, art appreciation, nature study, Bible and worldview, history, science, language arts, math, literature—there is so much included in these plans, beautifully woven into their stunning notebooking pages. But that variety also means there is a lot of work. Our school days were much longer, almost twice as long as they were before.
This planned variety also meant we no longer had time to pursue our own interests and passions, an important part of how we’ve always homeschooled. When my kids make connections with something we are studying, I like to allow them to pursue that with some unique learning projects. Tapestry always gave me plenty of room and margin to work that in, but Heart of Dakota made that much harder to accomplish without feeling as though we were getting behind.
Pros: The variety was already included in our plans without additional planning.
Cons: The planned variety also meant less flexibility for us to pursue our own passions.
More Separation (Less Family Learning)
On the surface, having each of my kids in their own guide with less time together seemed more peaceful. There were less fights, less distractions, and less opportunity for sibling rivalry. For awhile, I enjoyed that peace. We were still all studying the same topic this year (that was important to me and just so happened to fit where their learning levels were with Heart of Dakota), but there were not as many times we shared together. Read alouds are incorporated into the Heart of Dakota plans, but it just felt like a stretch to include them when my kids were already struggling to get everything done.
Over the winter break, my kids and I talked about what was going well and what they’d change. It’s a regular conversation we have over breaks. And unanimously the one thing they all missed (in spite of all that fighting) was the time together. They missed our read alouds and family projects. They missed our unit celebrations. Particularly my oldest felt isolated from everyone; as he’s heading into the turmoil of all those middle school emotions and changes, it was super important to me to listen to this feeling. He also missed our lengthy discussions we’d have when we were doing Tapestry. And with each of these comments, I had to agree—me, too!
Pros: Separated learning made for more peace in the moment.
Cons: Family learning made for more long-term memories.
Specific, narrow questions vs. Socratic Discussion
While Heart of Dakota provided some questions for “discussion,” the questions were really too narrow for discussions to go beyond question and answer. Additionally, a good Socratic discussion requires that I know the material, too. Heart of Dakota provided short summaries that let me know what topic was covered, but not nearly enough material for me to actually lead a discussion, at least not the kinds of discussions we enjoyed with Tapestry of Grace.
I also noticed the types of specific narrations the guide was asking for had caused my son to actually regress in his narration skills rather than grow. He was resorting to narrations that fit the specific requirements rather than longer narrations that were “thorough, detailed, and expanded” with his own connections (Know and Tell: the art of narration). In some instances, the connections were even made for him.
Pros: Specific questions make discussion times faster and more to the point; they require less teacher prep.
Cons: Discussions do not include as much depth or as much critical thinking.
Books and Required Reading
I did love many of the Heart of Dakota book choices, particularly for literature and reading. My kids loved delving into so many varied genres of reading, beyond simply historical fiction and the classics. (In fact, this is one area where we will probably continue to use broader book choices with discussions, using Read Aloud Revival and Center for Lit resources.)
With that said, no book list is perfect and while I loved some of the history choices (Beautiful Feet books, Christian Liberty Press, etc.), other choices were not my favorite. In some instances, in an effort to make some parts of history more child-friendly, I really felt like they presented the individuals as better than they actually were, portraying them as heroic and even godly when in reality they were prejudiced and cruel. I realize this isn’t always an easy line to draw, and I’ve been on both sides of this line now: I’ve read books that were far too dark for my sensitive kids, and books that paint far too cheery a picture of history’s darker moments. It’s not an easy decision, for a curriculum publisher or a parent. But Heart of Dakota does not allow for book substitutions, while Tapestry of Grace is tailored specifically for choices and substitutions.
Pros: Books include a lot of variety and a strong emphasis on character.
Cons: Some required books were not always true to the facts, and “cleaned up” history to fit this strict code of character.
Heart of Dakota is a big investment. We purchased nearly everything used, and it was still an exorbitant amount of money. But it’s beautiful and includes a lot of elements with easy, open-and-go guides. For some families, I can see why they love it so much.
But what I’ve learned about myself is that I am a curriculum-creator, not a curriculum-follower. I need the freedom to shape and create a curriculum that teaches to my goals and values. Tapestry, while not perfect and definitely more teacher-intensive, fit this greater need I have to customize and create flexible teaching plans while providing rich family learning experiences we can all remember fondly.
We needed that break to recognize our priorities, and now we are all eager to get back to Tapestry of Grace, to what we’ve known and loved for years. Our discussions are so much richer. And while I’m parenting more conflicts and distractions after bringing everyone back together, we are also laughing together, creating those inside jokes and shared memories again. And I love it. We are “home” in our homeschool, and it feels good to be back.
