| Author | |
time4tea
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Sept 01 2006 at 4:03pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I saw this topic on another board, and it got me curious. Apparently, Memoria Press ran an article in their Classical Teacher (title?) magazine that asserted that MODG (and any other methodology that follows in the vein of Dorothy Sayers) is not Classical, but in fact "neo-Classical". I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this, especially since my own understanding of what makes up a "Classical Education" is still in development.
__________________
Blessings to you!
~Tea
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Sept 01 2006 at 4:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Seems like "neo" is the new buzz prefix used by some to belittle those who have updated some older ideas (think neo-conservative). I am not saying I agree or disagree; this is just my observation.
I wonder if the "neo" has to do with content. If MODG uses a book by Scott Hahn, a more recent writer than, let's say, St. Augustine  , does that make the curriculum "neo-classical"?
Or is it a methodology issue? Does MODG use the Socratic method? Or has it taken a more text-driven approach to certain subjects?
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
time4tea
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Sept 01 2006 at 5:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
MacBeth,
What I took from the MP article is that the "true" classical methodology focuses really on the study of a few subjects only, basically Latin and the study of ancient cultures, along with Math and Religion. MODG has a broader scope in their course of study (almost more CM, if you will). From what I have seen, MODG uses a lot of the same texts that Kolbe (for example) uses, but I'm not sure if the author of the MP article would consider Kolbe to "neo" or not. Again, if I understood the MP article correctly, the author also seems to state that MODG's heavy focus on memorization is really more of an idea attributable to Dorothy Sayers as opposed to a "classical" method of education per se. I am hoping there may be someone else who has read this article who may want to share their take on it. I am not 100% positive because I haven't yet checked, but I think I read somewhere that the article is available at MP's website.
__________________
Blessings to you!
~Tea
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JuliaT
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 25 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 563
|
| Posted: Sept 01 2006 at 8:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I am stepping gingerly into this conversation. I haven't read the article nor do I know anything about MODG. I do, however, know about neo--classical. This is my understanding of it.
The proponents of neo--classical education are WTM, the Bluedorns, Douglas Wilson, etc. Neo--classical stems from Dorothy Sayers because she is the first one to give stages to the journey of learning. The Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric stage is one of the earmarks of neo--classical. It has been said that classical in the early years did not teach according to stages but, rather, the subjects--grammar, logic and rhetoric-- were the most important part of this type of education. I don't know if that makes sense or not.
Traditional classicists fall into the group of MP, LCC and Circe Institute. They advocate the teaching of fewer subjects but teaching them deeper. In the same vein, reading fewer books and reading them deeper. There are more characteristics of each type, but this is just the basics.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stefoodie
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 17 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8457
|
| Posted: Sept 01 2006 at 10:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
hi tea, i don't know if you've seen this thread or not, but there's a related thread here:
latin-centered curriculum
__________________
stef
mom to five
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
time4tea
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Sept 02 2006 at 7:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Julia,
Thanks for stepping in, because that is exactly what the article talked about, but I could not remember the exact wording! Thanks for that! The author of the article is the same man who wrote Latin Centered Curriculum btw.
Stef - yes, I did see the thread on LCC. Thanks for mentioning it again here.
__________________
Blessings to you!
~Tea
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Sept 02 2006 at 8:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I did notice the MP is trying not to alienate "neo-classical" educators while still promoting Latin Centered Curriculum and the "less is more" approach. Both Latin Centered Curriculum and TWTM are given space and mention in the MP magazine/catalog.
FWIW, Charlotte Mason was not of the "few subjects" mentality. She advocated a rich abundance of living ideas, while still urging deep study. Perhaps it doesn't have to be either/or.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 02 2006 at 8:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I am just rereading Climibing Parnassus wherein the author says that "classical" nowadays seems to mean something like "classic", having universal or broad value, but classical always traditionally referred to the serious study of the classical languages and literature -- Latin, Greek and reading the ancients in the original language. He is trying to reclaim the original meaning; his book deeply influenced LCC.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 02 2006 at 9:48am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I wonder if scholarship in Greek and Latin springs form natural ability in the same way as say, athletic ability or musical ability? I mean, natural ability PLUS hard work and environment and all that. So perhaps "less is more" means "you can't do everything and do it well, so focus on the most important things?"
I suppose everyone could learn a bit of Latin, even my cognitively delayed Aidan. But not everyone needs to be on a track that will have them reading Virgil in the original in 10th grade?
I've always looked for a definition of classical education that is broad enough that EVERY child can benefit from it, not just the gifted ones. That excludes several approaches for me and brings me closer to CM's ideal of a liberal education befitting every human person.
I do note that CM was of the "less is more" persuasion in the sense that she had the children tackle a fairly small number of books and pages in a term or day, of high-quality material. I guess that is what you mean, Elizabeth, that she went for deep AND broad.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Sept 02 2006 at 5:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
[QUOTE=Elizabeth] I did notice the MP is trying not to alienate "neo-classical" educators while still promoting Latin Centered Curriculum and the "less is more" approach.
This is what I really question about MP and the "less is more" philosophy. When you read what Cheryl Lowe's school, Highland, does, it is NOT less. It is every bit as "busy" as any other prep-school. In fact, it is far more busy and crammed full of subjects than I would even want my kids to do, especially in the early grades. It seems as if they just added Latin to an already full program.
In fact, from a philosophically standpoint, IF Latin is your center, then a little Latin isn't enough, because philosophically if little IS better and you have sacrificed a broad curriculum for Latin, then if your child doesn't excel at Latin, what kind of education have you provided for your child?
What attracted me initially to classical education was its strong foundation in language, (for us, especially English, memorization of the basics (just like Highland does - states, countries, dates, etc.), catechism (for us), and less stuff in the early grades (like formalized science). And just as important -TIME- for my kids to study and discover on their own. CM attracts me because of its strong literature base and the importance of the outdoors and living science first hand.
I guess I would be neo-classicist to the core. But in some ways, I actually DO less and go more deeply than Highland could with their subjects, especially in grade school. There really are just so many hours in a day.
I feel this "new" trend is a bit limiting and doesn't do what it actually claims to do (at least on some points). I'm with Willa. I have to broaden my definition of a classical educator if I want to claim that I might even be one, even slightly.
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Sept 02 2006 at 5:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I just got off Highland's school curriculum. Latin Center Curriculum and others state that English grammar can be learned through Latin. Then why does Highland teach English grammar and usage with Warriner's beginning in 5th grade in addition to Latin? I will say Latin DOES cement grammar. In fact like many neo-classists, we use 6th and 7th grade to zero in on grammar. Before that we simply talk about nouns, verbs, etc. and after that we revisit it before the kids sit for the ACT. Otherwise, we use it and correct it in our writing.
Then formalized science begins in kindergarten. By 3rd grade, they have a full curriculum for science.
In 5th grade they begin American History studies with Joy Hakim's books. Before that, they memorize dates, geography, etc. beginning in kindergarten. There again, Latinists don't advocate studying American History at length. I could go on, but if you are interested, you can see their curriculum on their website. It's anything but simple.
How is this concentrating on the basics and not filling up the curriculum with too many subjects? This isn't at all what is being suggested by LLC or others. When I tried to put together what authors, etc. were doing and what they advocated, I was disallusioned. I decided I wasn't classical at all, but maybe I'm happily a neo-classicist!
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: Sept 02 2006 at 10:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've never been able to label myself as classical, or otherwise and I have long since given up trying. I have found that my own style of learning or whatever is a broad exposure to many things, thinking them over, muddling and trying to relate one thing to another.
I knew I did not want compartmental learning for my dc - ok here is your lit study, here is your religion and here is your history. I want them to think about how they relate to one another. When I have read various proponents of classical or neo-classical, there are some things that do ring true to me. There are certain foundational books in the sense that most modern lit. alludes to these, etc. All our fields of study are full of Greek mythological terms and if you know the story, you know the psychology, or whatever being discussed. I have read about the Catholic centered education and am very, very attracted to that. The incarnation is the most important event of human history. I find myself very disturbed to be handing a young child a bunch of Greek mythology to read. At that age, it just seems indiscriminant.
Anyways, to make a long story shorter. I have pondered in my mind why I like some of what I have seen in Kolbe and MODG and despise other aspects. Why do I steer away from some of this, yet keep feeling pulled back to it. I have finally come to a certain understanding of my own feelings about the whole thing. I think there has always been a pull to the ancient literature, history and languages of Greece and Rome. I also think that we can get carried away (just my own ho). Is it worthy of my dc to read simply because it is ancient or from these cultures? What makes a book worthy? I love the socratic method, the pulling out and pondering, asking leading questions to require deep thought and to take a thought to its logical conclusion. It is a wonderful reprieve from mindless memorization and regurgitation for a test. Does that make a person classical? I do value a working appreciation for some of the great literature of Greece and Rome. Does that mean that I should read from these indiscriminantly? I personally would not want my dc to read some of the plays on the Kolbe reading list. I guess I feel they are so removed from moral thought, that they are not worth my time. They may be very well written, the first example of plays, etc. but I just cannot justify the preponderance of the other stuff in them. I do want my dc to read Homer (and there are some shakey things here and there in this as well, but overall there are some very Christian themes about the dangers of pride and unchecked anger) I know that Augustine and Aquinas used a lot of ancient authors to build from. I don't have so much fear that we cannot use and reflect on some of these ancient authors - but I do have trouble doing it indiscriminantly. Perhaps I could be accused of being a bit prudish here, but something tells me that is what these great saints did. Not everything from Greek and Rome was worth the time and effort. I often wonder if this is one of the errors of the Renaissance period, that eventually resulted in things like the French revolutions with goddess reason being installed in the church as it was desecrated and turned into a pagan temple (and is this part of what is happening today as well).
I have been going over and over in my mind, what exactly I want my 9th grader to read and study. I knew I wanted them to learn about ancient civilizations, but just couldn't tolerate spending 2 whole years on it. This seemed out of proportion. Finally, I figured out the approach I want us to take - and it is from the standpoint of Salvation History. These cultures were pagan but had aspects of the truth that helped pave the way for the savior. There were individuals who seemed to achieve beyond the common culture and these are some of the great authors we read. There are also some histories written - but how could you possibly use these as a main backdrop to history study. History as seen in ancients was not linear - it didn't have a start point or a stop point but went in circles of interesting stories. Now if my dc wants to skim read through some of these histories for a feel for how the Greeks studied history and then a bit of what an eyewitness says - fine. But to use it as the backbone for an ancient history study just strikes me wrong.
Where does this leave me in terms of all the classical and neo-classical debates. We are studying Latin, and some of these ancient authors - but we are doing it from a Catholic, Christian point of view and supplementing with reflections from more modern authors and using some sort of sequential spine. I am not sure if this disqualifies me from posting here. I just have never really troubled myself about where I fit in all this debate about different teaching methods, styles or philosophies.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 1:09am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I guess Kolbe is a mixture of neo-classical and oldstyle classical. Their program starts Latin in 4th grade and Greek (Koine) in 5th. The kids learn Latin through 9th grade and stop with the Greek in 6th. My oldest wanted more and went on to study NT Greek in 11th and 12th. But they don't have a "reading the ancients in the original" plan. And they send Dorothy Sayers' essay with the other material you get when you enroll.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 6:15am | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
I suppose everyone could learn a bit of Latin, even my cognitively delayed Aidan. But not everyone needs to be on a track that will have them reading Virgil in the original in 10th grade?
I've always looked for a definition of classical education that is broad enough that EVERY child can benefit from it, not just the gifted ones. That excludes several approaches for me and brings me closer to CM's ideal of a liberal education befitting every human person.
I do note that CM was of the "less is more" persuasion in the sense that she had the children tackle a fairly small number of books and pages in a term or day, of high-quality material. I guess that is what you mean, Elizabeth, that she went for deep AND broad.
|
|
|
Oh! I do think you have something here, Willa! My children (with perhpas one or two exceptions) are not academically gifted. Latin is a real struggle here and it takes a lion's share of time to get not very far. Would that time not be put to better use elsewhere?
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 7:40am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Latin is a real struggle here and it takes a lion's share of time to get not very far. Would that time not be put to better use elsewhere?
I had this exact dicussion with a fellow homeschooler here in our area last week. Both of our oldest kids are at the same college and are disappointed that we empahasized the Latin over a conversation language. I asked her daughter, "But aren't you glad you studied Latin?" She said, "For the roots, but studying all the declensions and grammar was too confusing and time consuming." (This kid's a whiz with a full tuition/room/board scholarship in college and a motivated student).But really you HAVE to study all declensions, the grammar, and memorize it to understand and do well with Latin. So there's the problem. Is it worth it to THAT child? Is it a good use of that child's time or talents?
My sons aren't language people...or at least I thought so because we had only done Latin. But this year I began Spanish with the 16 year old and he is enjoying it immensely. I would have NEVER thought he would have enjoyed the rigors of learning a foreign language after telling me he didn't want to after he finished Henle's 1. (But he found out he needs 12 hours college credit in a single language for his degree).
Son #3 has done Latina 1 and part of 2 and Schola Latina. He'll begin high school next year and I am debating whether to let this child study Spanish and shelve the Henle's for latter high school if he wants to persue it at that point. I have a whole year to think about it and decide. My goal always was at least a year of Henle's.
I will never think Latin is a waste of time. But I am beginning to evaluate whether it is prudent for each child to devote 4-5 hours a week in studying Henle's. To do it well, it is a lot of work...as in at least 1 hour a day in high school. Yes, it CAN be spread out....but to master the language takes a time commitment at some point. Is the child REALLY interested in making that commitment?
To a certain extent it is equivalent to competitive sports at a certain level. It takes time. Same with music when you get to a certain level. My 2nd son can't practice just an hour a day and keep his current violin professor. Latin can be learned a bit with Latina Christiana for 15-30 minutes a day in grade school, but this is just a taste of the Latin. If the goal is to learn the language, then some serious time commitment will need to be made at some point (Less so maybe if you speak it to them and they are infusing this way also. I don't speak Latin, so I am no help to them this way).
I want to study at least a little Latin as a family because it is the language of the Church. But this year we are better served learning hymns in Latin, prayers, and studying roots. I like "Our Father's House" Latin materials and Lingua Angelica. The music is both education, soothing, and solidly Catholic. I feel as if I am imparting Catholic history when I am teaching Latin hymns. The vocabulary they are learning isn't getting them ready to read Caesar, but I don't care. I would rather having them sing of the Blessed Sacrament  , at least if they weren't willing to put the real effort into learning Henle's.
Boy, am I out of place posting on the classical site! Willa, you have the right to block my posts. I may be getting a bit heretical
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 11:37am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh, gosh, Stephanie, not at all! This is a "real learning" classical forum, that's how it's described, so it's going to be about how we work classical into our REAL lives with our children. Honesty is a good thing : ).
I do think talent and motivation must play a part. IT could be that a Drew Campbell, with a linguistically talented little girl who is immersed in Latin from early years, will take to it like a fish and go far. I don't think there is any one system that will apply across the board, though.
Liam didn't even quite finish Henle 1. We just dinked around too much, every year a few weeks of Latin until I got into a first trimester or medical crisis and shaved the curriculum down to the bare bones. So until he was mature enough to take the reins over for himself, we didn't get far. But he LOVED Latin. In fact, I clearly remember starting analytical ENglish grammar with him back in 6th grade. He even loved that. He loves digging into the structure of things. On the other hand he has never been much into sports or music (until recently, when he has taken up the classical guitar after being inspired by the music element at his college).
If he finishes his four years at college he will be able to read real books in Latin, at age 23 instead of 16. I am not sure if it makes a real difference in the scale of things. Time will tell. St Ignatius didn't learn Latin until his mid-thirties, I understand. Before that he was too focused on being a soldier.
I like LCC's message that Latin CAN be part of the core curriculum. That concept helped me build Latin into the heart of the homeschool rather than thinking of it as an elitist supplement.
The way we have been doing Latin with the middle school boys at present is to work on vocab. Fortunately it IS a subject where even a little goes a long way. I took a semester in middle school and a semester in college and it was some of the best academic time I ever spent. Honestly the grammar never stuck in my mind but the vocab most definitely did and it enriches me every single day.
I could write another long post about the benefits of Latin, so I'm not trying to minimize that. My point is more "anything worth doing is worth doing badly." Or "Better is an allowance of green herbs and love there, Than a fatted ox, and hatred with it". I guess that a homemade but sincere effort might pay off better than a great plan and system where the kid is dragging and mom is burned out.
Of course, a fatted oxen AND love is fine; where the children are basically on board, mom (or dad) is steering an effective trajectory, and they go far. Like the Fosses and their soccer and literature
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 11:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think Cay tried to ask Drew if vocabulary and roots were enough in this thread and he didn't really answer her question. But I think for us, Lingua Angelica (just the memory work--nothing written) along with roots and vocabulary will suffice this year. Of course, that doesn't give them Latin grammar but we ARE working on English grammar. The "real" part of it is that there will be nine children in my house this fall, including a newborn, someone else's needy 2yo, two kids with special needs, and a high school senior. All I can do is what I can do...
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 12:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, I think that would be a tough question for Drew to answer. I suppose he would not think it is "enough", but he would probably think it was better than nothing. Is it "enough" if a child only learns functional math? In one way, yes, but that doesn't mean all our kids ought to stop math at 6th grade. Yet if Aidan learns to do real life math competently, that would be an excellent thing and not to be despised, even if he never grasps algebra or calculus. There's sort of a continuum. I'm speaking for a convicted Latinist here, trying to answer for him -- he might have a completely different perspective, but I can see why he might hesitate to answer in that context and that's what I'm trying to express.
I think our premises inform our educational practices.
Tracy Simmons says in Climbing Parnassus that someone wrote that you couldn't get true elegance of mind without learning Latin and Math. He said he did not think that was empirically true, because he knew people who were truly elegant of mind without intensive Latin study. But the principle still might be somewhat in effect; that Latin helps confer a certain habit of thinking that might be possible, but more circuitously, to be acquired by other means.
To beat the sports analogy to death -- none of my kids seem to be that much into formal athletics. There are lots of things that can be readily acquired by sports -- physical fitness, team spirit, discipline of personality -- that the last pope wrote about quite extensively. My kids will have to get them some other way, or by a minimal "less is more" principle (by minor league seasonal sports), or not get those qualities developed at all.
Latinists think Latin is important, and the Pope did mention, in Divini Illius Magistri, the reckless and disastrous element in how quickly and thoroughly our society in the generations previous to us dropped our Latin heritage along with almost every other traditional means of enculturation. Because of that, those of us who are interested in the good old things are trying to rekindle an ember rather than just pass along a torch. I guess we get credit for trying, like the illiterate pirate said about reading the Bible 
I have no doubt you are doing more Latin than I am, Elizabeth ......
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 4:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
| I have no doubt you are doing more Latin than I am, Elizabeth ...... |
|
|
I watched every single one of my children sing the Agnus Dei today at Mass. Seemed like a major milestone to me...
I guess I've just revised my goals a bit as I recognize that there is only so much I CAN do in a day and I really, really think it's more important to read the saints' stories to them than to spend hours holding their hands through Latin. They don't "get it" in twenty minutes a day...
OTOH, I am totally not of the neo-classical persuasion a la Susan Wise Bauer. I could easily follow Laura Berquist's plan, if necessary, though. (I prefer to do my own thing but I could follow that plan. Neither I nor my children could follow SWB's plan.) Once upon a time, I read Laura Berquist's very first hand-stapled edition. It made perfect sense to me, particularly since she encouraged tailoring. It seems funny to me to lump LB with SWB in one category (neo-classical) because their approaches are not the same at all.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BrendaPeter
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 981
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 7:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
One thing with Latin that I have found to be very helpful is that *I* have been able to pick up the grammar so, so easily & that has been very helpful. (I'm assuming this is because I (like all of you!) speak English ) Declensions, well that's another story. But I find that my children are able to pick that part up pretty well & believe me, it's not because they're academically-gifted! Oldest ds 12 has a visual problem, although he is quite bright.
We've done LC I for 3 years in a row & did about the 1st 3rd of LC II. This year I decided to take the plunge with my 2 oldest (10 1/2 & 12) into Henle I. I'm thinking that getting my footing with LC I gave me the confidence to try Henle. I will say that I love diagramming & grammar (I'm weird, I know) so the order of Latin is very attractive to me. We're using the MP Henle I curriculum guide which is only Units I & II. I love the pace (very slow) & the fact that it's all review from Latina Christiana. Also Cheryl Lowe gives you lots of tips & has you make up both vocab. cards & grammar cards. We spend about 1/2 hour on it a day which I don't think is much. Sometimes the kids have to spend 15 minutes more on it finishing up the Exercises. They have been "getting it" because it's broken up into tiny bits. Latin is really a discipline & if there's one thing I've learned with homeschooling is that's you eat an elephant 1 bite a time  . I'm satisfied if we learn a little well vs. alot in a mediocre way.
I find that the younger the children are exposed to latin the better. I don't mean curriculum though - I mean in real life - basically "immersion". We are very blessed to be able to attend Sunday (& often other) Masses at a local friary where we sing the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei & Pater Noster. Also we try to pray our daily rosary in latin at least twice week in the winter. This seems to have gotten the little ones "used" to latin.
I would also like our dc to learn Spanish (for obvious reasons) so I have them work on Rosetta Stone in the summers. I love Rosetta Stone & have spent a decent amount of time polishing my own spanish. The written portion is one of the best grammar practices. I envision them "studying" Spanish in 11th & 12th grade.
I love what everyone has written here. Wonderful food for thought. In our house this is a "Grand Experiment". We'll see how things go, as I am by no means a pro. I love reading what some of the more experienced moms have written. That helps me be more realistic, I hope!
Personally, I've been drawn to latin since day one. The neo-classicists (even Laura Berquist who I'm a big fan of) stressed me out in that there always seemed this pressure to "do it all". I've always wanted to focus on latin, but we were too busy with EVERYTHING else to do that. When I read LCC, it gave me the confidence to go with my own convictions. These days we truly do focus on Latin, Memorization (Poetry & Baltimore Catechism), Grammar, Composition & Math.
So basically this is my very long-winded way of saying that classical to me is focusing on Latin w/grammar & Math as the priorities. My overall sense from LCC was not to spread yourself too thin; to focus on less but do it in a deeper way. With MODG, I was definitely spread too thin. Maybe Highlands School is classical in the sense that Latin & Math are the priorities, but there is also alot more thrown in? I'm not sure.
So far this year has been the best so far, but it's still early . Our new prioritizing gives us plenty of time to read in the afternoons (1 hour for the dc & 1 hour read-aloud by mom). I so understand what Elizabeth wrote about reading saint stories. That is a big priority in our home & comprises most of our read alouds. There is truly only so much you can do & I find that I have to pray alot about what we're supposed to be focusing on. Making Latin the priority was really an answer to pray for me.
__________________
Blessings,
Brenda (mom to 6)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Philosophy of Education
Topic: Is MODG "Neo-Classical"?
