| Author | |
~Rachel~
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 677
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 2:18pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
FWIW... you mentioned not knowing where the Bluedorn's stood on language?
In their book, they were very much for the children being fluent in Greek, Latin and Hebrew to the point where they were able to read the original language of the scriptures.
They have quite a fascinating chapter on it in fact  .
yes... I collect books... I admit it 
__________________
~Rachel~
Wife to William
Mum to James 13, Lenore 8
Lighting a Fire
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 2:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa, thank you for sharing such a lengthy description of how you see Sacramental learning.
I hope it's okay if I offer a few thoughts moving in a slightly different direction but that were prompted by your posts. I grew up Catholic and was confirmed in eighth grade. But in college I converted to Protestantism because my Catholic heritage felt so hollow to me (it just didn't grab my imagination nor did I find it relevant to my life). On the other hand, the devotion of Protestants to studying the Bible, to creating community, to making their daily lives an act of faith rather than merely fulfilling a weekly duty to mass drew me to faith.
It's been twenty+ years since I "became a Christian." I put it in quotes because today I know that all of the decisions I made as a child (I was among the most sincere Catholic children you could find, fully embracing my first confession, communion and taking my confirmation seriously unlike the rest of my friends in CCD - they made fun of me  ) were a part of a continuum that reveals a heart turned toward God and spiritual things throughout my life. No matter how much I tried to make Catholicism rise above symbolism to reality, it never did.
About five years ago, I hit a crisis of faith. I had lived as a missionary in a Muslim country and I had carried out the precepts of my beliefs with faithfulness and sincere commitment. But suddenly, as I opened myself to other expressions of faith (and ex-Christians too), I saw all kinds of contradictions between lived reality and expressed belief. I turned, incredibly, to Hans Kung for help and read many of his books. He's amazing.
Since then, I enrolled in a theology program at a Catholic University, of all places. I have loved the Jesuit atmosphere. One of the primary things I love about the Jesuit education is the way the strands of book learning are married to ethical and social action that makes learning purposeful in the world today. An interest in the poor and in making God's kingdom (the reign of God) real in day to day life informs the educational atmostphere of Xavier. I love it!
When I looked at the classical education model of TWTM (after having been a true fan of Charlotte Mason), the main problem I had with it was that it appeared more committed to education as a goal, rather than a process. CM has always been more about the process of developing an intimacy of relations rather than an accumulation of facts or information. Ironically, this is what I felt when I initially converted to Protestantism - an intimacy of relations that was fostered in daily life rather than a passage through a set of rituals to check off by adulthood.
But since becoming acquainted with Catholicism through the lens of Protestant converts and university Catholic professors, I am seeing that an adventure of learning has captured the imaginations of these kinds of Christians that inspires me. My old experience of Catholicism was actually more akin to the way I would see TWTM - going through the steps for the sake of becoming educated properly, but without the heart, without the intimacy of relations.
Yet today, the Catholics I know are on the other side - they appear to have found a depth and connectedness between life and faith, education and service that creates an integrated whole. To me, that is the goal of education - education is a way of life, not knowledge or learning.
So your discussion of Sacramental Learning fascinates me. I don't know what I think of the Sacraments, per se. But I do relate to the depth of feeling that they evoke in you because I have experienced something akin to that in art museums, when I watch Shakespeare performed live, when I watch birds at my backyard feeders, when I listen to my daughter recite verbatim the stories she listens to on CD and so on.
I am not a praciticing Catholic. But I love the Catholics in my life! I just heard from my dad that he listened to a radio show the other day where the priest credited the homeschooling movement with saving the future of American Catholicism! I told him that I knew the women who were doing the saving. Lol
Anyway, lots of rambling. Thanks for letting me watch the way you think about your faith.
To me, the height of education is becoming a conscious, deeply aware person who discovers the wonder of life through a kaleidescope of perspectives and rejoices in those discoveries... at any age.
If those discoveries go on to create a fundamentally moral, compassionate person, you will be well on your way to sainthood, in my book. No curriculum will produce that. And I can see how Catholicism is enhancing that experience for many of you.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 4:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
Oh, here's another way to say it, perhaps -- the Ignatians have a motto "much, not many" -- meaning that a multiplicity of subjects and things are inferior to a few, IMPORTANT things.
.. some things that I thought were essential were NOT essential.
And some things that we don't consider essential, and often ignore in our secular culture, ARE important.... like "down time" to ponder and watch and dream, an occasional clearing away of academic "clutter", and development of the child's will to learn, and a devout desire to do things "for the greater glory of God." |
|
|
First of all, Willa, I love to hear everything you say. You are so well-read and wise! This is probably not news to you, but it sounds like you are feeling a little insecure about all that you're sharing. I, for one, am soaking it up like I always do. It sounds like everyone else who is following this question is soaking it up too.
I've been watching this conversation and not saying anything. Partially this is because I've been too busy to give it the time it deserves and partially it's because I knew that Willa would weigh in with beautiful wisdom. She did. I don't have anything else to add in the wisdom department, but I'm feeling a desire that I can't shut down to share my limited experience and thoughts on this subject. My sharing is not really in direct relation to the question, but in relation to the thoughts the question stirred up for me.
When we began homeschooling I had a vision of what I thought education should be. It's hard to put what I envisioned into words, but the shortest version I can come up with is "a joyful exploration of the world God created - heaven and earth". I have no real education in educational theory. I don't understand all the philosophical underpinnings of the different educational methods. I am going by gut and a dream.
I was attracted to classical education right away. I believed it to be the path to that dream education I envisioned. In my two years of homeschooling this has changed. What I've realized as I've mulled over this conversation is that what attracted me to classical education was the end result I believed it promised. I saw the promise of a person who understood what it was to be wise. A person who had looked at and studied the world and it's history, and understood the truth's hidden in it. My dream was a child who was digging into the joy of God's creation with both hands. What turned out to be the reality was a mom with stacks of books, piles of schedules, lots of anxiety over what was necessary to get from A to Z, and a child who was glumly, but obediently, sitting at the table writing and reading. This was not my dream.
In two years of homeschooling, our style has evolved into an eclectic one. Our homeschool has become happier and happier the further I have gotten from any one particular style of education. As I struggled to make sense of what CE actually was, I began to realize something Willa has mentioned - it's a pretty hard thing to nail down. In a way this is a comfort to me. I began to homeschool with the idea that there is a "right way" to homeschool and I just needed to find it. Once I found it, I could just follow the correct path laid out by the experts until I reached the end of the road. What I'm discovering is that there is no path that I can just follow. (I know I'm kind of slow - you all knew that a long time ago didn't you?  ) I can take the maps of past explorers and use their experience to help me plot our path, but no one who has homeschooled before or who is homeschooling now has the same destination as I have because of the uniqueness of each person in our family. I think that means that none of us will educate in a pure CE way (whatever that is ), or in a pure CM way or a pure any other way. Realizing this takes away much of the pressure to "do it right". There isn't a magical path from A to Z that if I could just figure out would lead me to the destination of my dream. There isn't some magical body of knowledge I can demand my child master that will create my "well-educated" child. Education is a life-long process, and I do not have to turn out a perfectly educated child at age 18. I need to turn out a child at 18 who still desires to travel down the path.
Each of my children has a different mission in this world. Their interests are probably an indication of where they are being led. My personal conclusion after two years of homeschooling is that we ask way too much of our kids. I'm not saying we challenge our kids intellectually too much, but that we ask them to be master of too many areas of information. In fact, I think we end up really challenging them too little by expecting so broad a range of things to be read, written, and memorized. There is too much on their plate for them to really absorb and contemplate any of it. We will never know all there is in this world to know. Let's let them know some things and know them well. There are, of course, the basic skills that need to be mastered, but even these can be mastered through a vehicle that matches a child's interests. God can use many vehicle's to reach us. Some may discover God through a mastery of math and science. Someone else may discover God through their mastery of history and languages or literature and philosophy. They will all have aquired a level of wisdom in different ways. If they've followed their God prompted interests into these fields, they will ultimately be educated to God's expectations (which is really more important than any curriculum provider's expectations anyway ). Instead of trying to somehow give my child every bit of wisdom there is out there in the world to acquire, I want to teach them to love the journey and to be humble enough to turn to their neighbor for wisdom when there is something lacking in their own. I know I'm continually turning to others for wisdom on this homeschooling journey. Obviously there is plenty lacking in my own!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Leonie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2831
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 6:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Julie,
Thank you for sharing.
Like you, the ideas of CM that attracted me were just that - the emphasis on ideas and relationships.
While I have read several books about the classical method and what I call neo-classical education , it has been CM that I still fell the greatest attraction to.
Why? I think because of the emphasis on relationships and living books and nature and art and music - not necessarily on content or method.
This has mirrored my exploration of and eventual conversion to the Catholic Faith.
I don't think there need be a large division between Catholicism and classical education - and I think Willa has expressed this very eloquently.
For me, a CM education has always held the attraction and the blossoming of my children's love for learning and for the Faith, and fits with what I have come to know of the Church and many of the Saints.
Leonie in Sydney
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 7:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think Julie's observations dovetail very nicely with the KIC conversation. The expression of faith her is very different from the KIC one. It only makes sense that the philosophy of education here would be different as well...making connections, forging relationships
__________________
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 |
|
| |
guitarnan
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10883
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 7:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think Richelle is my spiritual twin. I couldn't say it any better!!!! I started with a classical view, as well. I think my own lifelong love of learning, and my twelve years of traditional Catholic schooling, combined to lead me to the conclusion that all children could be brought to love of learning the same way.
Ha ha.
The truth in my family is that each year is different and each child is different; that makes 2x2 possible combinations for us per year. For larger families there are many more possible combinations...it's really amazing.
Focusing on books with real meaning, combined with the practicalities of math, grammar, etc., has freed us up to explore some new areas...and to reflect on past experience. This last has been a real revelation to me. When we left Italy, I thought I knew what our children took away from our two years there. Boy, was I wrong! My ds (13) wanted to get on a plane to be in Rome for the Conclave...he just knew he was missing out on history by being here instead of there. This was the boy who was "tired of Rome" and "sick of seeing the same places [the Vatican]". Only by leaving did he find out how much he really loved Italy. Of course, we can't just leap onto the nearest plane and head to Rome  , but I am so happy that my son really understands that our Church stands on 2,000 years of Tradition!
So, as Richelle says, each family must educate each child as necessity dictates. There is no one right answer. If there is a right answer, I believe that the answer is...we all share, we all give, we all plant seeds, we all work. Perhaps the harvest is not entirely mine; I turn to my fellow workers for guidance, and so the harvest belongs to all of us. As long as our children discover God, that's what counts.
I think it's important for us to take what we've learned not only to our children...the future of our beloved Church...but also to those who've guided us in the past. I know that it gives my mom great pleasure to know that I'm passing along our faith and our family stories to my children, her only grandchildren. I remind her often that she and Dad gave me the things I needed to become a successful parent...and I think it helps her realize that there is a purpose to her life. Those of us blessed with mentors should remember to thank them. (I'm on a mission...there are a couple of people out there I need to thank!)
I am so blessed to know all of you (you may be tired of reading this, but I am not tired of writing it!). I hope I can meet all of you in person some day and give you the hugs you deserve. Cyber-smiles aren't enough. You enrich my life. You point the way when you don't even know where I'm going. You pray for my loved ones when you don't know them; your prayers give hope to people you will never meet.
If this isn't what education is all about, I am on the wrong planet. Sharing. Asking. Guidance. Love. Any approach that is closed to these basics of life is not going to work, because children need all of these things.
As do we all...and I thank you for them.
__________________
Nancy in MD. Mom of ds (24) & dd (18); 31-year Navy wife, move coordinator and keeper of home fires. Writer and dance mom.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 23 2005 at 11:14am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was so relieved the conversation didn't die after my loooong posts and that, Julie, you weren't offended by my sacramental post which became a bit of a "testimony". I enjoyed yours.
I noticed that both Natalia and Julia mentioned that they get a bit frustrated and lost without guidelines and a sense that they know where they are going. While Richelle mentioned that she naturally feels that way but is trying to be more open to learning wherever it happens. Those reactions have both been mine at different times sometimes in the exact same day or hour
So, I find that I like the structure of learning foreign languages and math and a couple of other subjects in I guess a "classical" way. When the Latin and Greek were smaller parts of my homeschool, I used to follow history in a sequential cycle and that seemed to give me the spine I needed for my homeschool. Then I feel more comfortable about the open-ended reading and thinking that I also consider of first necessity in an education, but that almost by definition doesn't have a direct outcome.
After test-driving the booklist Elizabeth was working on with help from me I became captivated by a more literary, theme based approach rather than straight through history. I am a literature major and as a kid read in "themes" just like that. So it was appealing to me to follow along threads and research context -- time and place through the literary themes.
It took a lot of time for me though -- Natalia, my kids seem to prefer the tutoring model of working one on one and so I'd be tailoring classes for each one of them. Recently I've been using AMbleside and Mater Amabilis books for our "school" subjects and using the Real Learning booklist for "free reading" choices.
But what I was going to say was that I often wonder what makes people choose one "style" of homeschooling over another and how people learn to be comfortable with less structure or indeed, MORE structure. Is it partly a temperament thing? I know I am by nature a loner and if I don't have some "method" for interacting with my kids, I just won't. So I've tried hard to look for a "method" that balances out and fulfills my way of parenting. I see how Elizabeth and others have developed their way of doing this over the years, as well. I think the bottom line principles are very similar but the applications are different because of our different life circumstances,temperaments, and the talents and interests of our kids.
To me it is sort of like attachment mothering. ... you listen and learn from the "experts", including other mothers, you draw on your past experiences and your faith, but you primarily try to be conscious of the mother-child relationship and how to introduce him to the bigger world in the best way for your situation and your child and your self. You don't just become slave to the child's whims(my mistake in my earlier mothering years) but you learn how to give sacrificially and guide lovingly. Your mothering style evolves responsively.
Classical education, at least the Ignatian model, has as one of its main "goals" that stuidents develop a love for learning and a taste for "things of the mind" which I take it means things beyond the latest trends and fun foods. I think Socrates spoke often about how wisdom has to be personal, it can't just be transmitted wholesale from one mind to another. The teacher is a "midwife". Now I'm not trying to say that Truth is relative, or anything like it! It's absolute, but our response is unique and subjective. St Therese talked about how the same sun shone upon the violets and the roses, but in different ways.
I have a theory that even unschoolers need a spine. For MacBeth's kids, it was music and perhaps German. FOr Leonie's family, it might change from year to year as family needs changed, but there was almost always something her kids were engaged in. Elizabeth's family seems to thrive on literature based themes. When I experimented with unschooling, it was my experience that I got overloaded with all the possibilities and ended up just sort of drifting, not really feeling that we were going anywhere at all. I hated that feeling. I also hate the feeling that we are pushing through academic subjects at a lockstep. I guess for me, CE and CM both help me balance between love and discipline.
Obviously I'm getting theoretical again -- aha I've earned another geek emoticon  next time I'll try to be more down to earth but I do love talking philosophically and you guys are great comrades in that  Thanks so much for this interesting and thought-provoking discussion.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Leonie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2831
|
| Posted: April 23 2005 at 6:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa,
Thank you for sharing. I, too, think that temperament and family lifestyles end up influening our mothering and our homeschools.
For us, the constant change has meant a reliance on family, the inportance of meeting others and making connections and trusting our old standby - literature.
I have always felt that life and literature were our spine - obviously I am not a classical homeschooler.
Leonie in Sydney
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: April 23 2005 at 6:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Leonie wrote:
I have always felt that life and literature were our spine - obviously I am not a classical homeschooler.
Leonie in Sydney |
|
|
Oh, me neither Leonie, thoughI've certainly enjoyed reading ALL the classical homeschooling books. It doesn't work for me and I'm much better off acknowledging that and embracing what does work.
__________________
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 |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: April 25 2005 at 7:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
"I often wonder what makes people choose one "style" of homeschooling over another and how people learn to be comfortable with less structure or indeed, MORE structure. Is it partly a temperament thing?"
I have wondered that myself. When I started hs what attracted me to SL was my personal preference for history. When I saw a curriculum that was based in history and world history at that, I felt I had found my match.
I can say that the single most important factor that has made me change curricula or try new approaches is exposure. Through boards like this I have learned of what other people are doing and their experiences have send me to research different methods,
There are certain things that have appealed to me because they address a lack I perceive I have. That is CM for me. When I first read A Charlotte Mason Companion it made me realized that there was something I was missing in my life and that was enjoyment of life, enjoyment of the moment. There is a pleasure in living thta comes from interacting with life the way CM talks about. Also there is the statement of viewing children as persons. So many times I have denied my children's preferences or dismissed their attitudes or dislikes because they are children, they don't know better. CM reminded me to place myself in their shoes and treat them as I would like to be treated.
I know that CM is a lot more that this two things I mentioned. CM is about ideas and relationships and richness etc. But I have to say that the major impact she has had in my life is theoretical rather than practical.
One thing that I think can influence curriculum choice is fear and insecurity, I think that a lot of people choose textbook approach and choose to replicate school at home because they are afraid of their kids not measuring up to the world's standard and because they feel insecure of their ability to accomplish the task.
I do think that my natural inclinations have affected my choices. That is why I don't use unit studies all the time because I don't feel comfortable that way. But like you said, a lot of the choices we make in hs have to do with the child. When I started hs I didn't factor in the children and how they change. Now I know that we both change and what might work today might not work tomorrow. That is what make this journey exciting and some times uncomfortable.
One last thing, I love your long posts. The likelihood that I ever meet you and others here is slim. Long posts are satisfying.
They make me feel like a pig  feasting on ideas.
Blessings,
Natalia
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Genevieve
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: April 25 2005 at 8:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think that Sonlight does give structure and it also gives great content--those stories are just begging to be read. It's not classical and doesn't pretend to be. It can also be a bit too much in terms of content. It's more Ruth Beechick than Charlotte Mason but it is easily adaptable..[/QUOTE wrote:
How is Ruth Beechick different from CM? Anyone care to elaborate?
Genevieve |
|
|
How is Ruth Beechick different from CM? Anyone care to elaborate?
Genevieve
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
julia s.
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: April 25 2005 at 8:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
juliecinci wrote:
But in college I converted to Protestantism because my Catholic heritage felt so hollow to me (it just didn't grab my imagination nor did I find it relevant to my life). On the other hand, the devotion of Protestants to studying the Bible, to creating community, to making their daily lives an act of faith rather than merely fulfilling a weekly duty to mass drew me to faith.
It's been twenty+ years since I "became a Christian." I put it in quotes because today I know that all of the decisions I made as a child (I was among the most sincere Catholic children you could find, fully embracing my first confession, communion and taking my confirmation seriously unlike the rest of my friends in CCD - they made fun of me ) were a part of a continuum that reveals a heart turned toward God and spiritual things throughout my life. No matter how much I tried to make Catholicism rise above symbolism to reality, it never did.
About five years ago, I hit a crisis of faith. I had lived as a missionary in a Muslim country and I had carried out the precepts of my beliefs with faithfulness and sincere commitment. But suddenly, as I opened myself to other expressions of faith (and ex-Christians too), I saw all kinds of contradictions between lived reality and expressed belief. I turned, incredibly, to Hans Kung for help and read many of his books. He's amazing.
Since then, I enrolled in a theology program at a Catholic University, of all places. I have loved the Jesuit atmosphere. One of the primary things I love about the Jesuit education is the way the strands of book learning are married to ethical and social action that makes learning purposeful in the world today. An interest in the poor and in making God's kingdom (the reign of God) real in day to day life informs the educational atmostphere of Xavier. I love it!
When I looked at the classical education model of TWTM (after having been a true fan of Charlotte Mason), the main problem I had with it was that it appeared more committed to education as a goal, rather than a process. CM has always been more about the process of developing an intimacy of relations rather than an accumulation of facts or information. Ironically, this is what I felt when I initially converted to Protestantism - an intimacy of relations that was fostered in daily life rather than a passage through a set of rituals to check off by adulthood.
But since becoming acquainted with Catholicism through the lens of Protestant converts and university Catholic professors, I am seeing that an adventure of learning has captured the imaginations of these kinds of Christians that inspires me. My old experience of Catholicism was actually more akin to the way I would see TWTM - going through the steps for the sake of becoming educated properly, but without the heart, without the intimacy of relations.
Yet today, the Catholics I know are on the other side - they appear to have found a depth and connectedness between life and faith, education and service that creates an integrated whole. To me, that is the goal of education - education is a way of life, not knowledge or learning.
I am not a praciticing Catholic. But I love the Catholics in my life! I just heard from my dad that he listened to a radio show the other day where the priest credited the homeschooling movement with saving the future of American Catholicism! I told him that I knew the women who were doing the saving. Lol
To me, the height of education is becoming a conscious, deeply aware person who discovers the wonder of life through a kaleidescope of perspectives and rejoices in those discoveries... at any age.
|
|
|
Julie,
I found your post interesting. I grew up in a devout Catholic household and I was very devout and sincere in my faith. I even wanted to hear the calling to become a nun, but I never received that call.
My house was also very angry growing up and I was often put in the role of peace maker to the point that by the time I left I was one big knotted mess and sad all the time. I grew up in a poor neighborhood (not projects poor, but poor in wealth and spirit) with all the problems that go with that and the amount of abuse I saw adult heap on their children and on eachother made me so sad. When I left my home I left that as far behind me as I thought I could. But like one of my favorite titles of books says "whereever you go there you are."
I was reading Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance and in my trying to understand the main character better I ended up reading three books on Buddhism and took a four year detour into Buddhist meditation. I left my Catholic faith behind, like all else in my life (or so I thought) and tried to find the peace that I could not find in my life up until then. The Catholic faith teaches about faith really well, but in fairness I think the Buddhists have a good handle on peace like no where else. And what I learned during that time I take with me on my journy.
Oddly enough the Buddhist saying that when the student is ready the teacher will appear -- never happened. In fact I was reading Natalie Goldberg's Long Quiet Highway when she was talking to her Buddhist teacher and told him that she felt as if she were actually Jewish and he said that was natural that Buddhist reveal ultimately who we essentially are and if she felt she were Jewish she should go there. It was at this time that I thought about who ultimately I was and it was Catholic. And from that day I moved back toward my faith, but with a much more mature understanding of myself and the faith.
It is wonderful and mysterious how everyone is on their journey. I have a growing relationship with my family again. There is only one God and he brings us to His place not broken but restored. He has many ways to heal us.
Hsing is just more of that journey. How we homeschool is as individual as how and where we find God because it is ultimately an expression of faith. No one takes their child away from the norm in this conformist society without some act of faith and love.
Classic homeschooling at its worst is more like checklists and pushing towards an excellence that can't really be achieved without God's perfect intervention. But at its best is a glimpse into the origin of humanity's soul. The basics of society's building blocks.
Charlotte Mason at its worst is nothing more than a dumping ground of scattered ideas and loose ends. But at its best is an entry way into greater faith and a wonderful taste of the greatness this world has offered in the past and continues to offer.
This is really long and rambling. I'm just trying to make sense of my straying thoughts that betray a more humble thinker than most of the wise women on this board. Thanks for letting me go on.
__________________
julia
married to love of her life
with ds12 ds8 ds3 and ds1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BrendaPeter
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 981
|
| Posted: April 25 2005 at 9:28am | IP Logged
|
|
|
julia s. wrote:
Hsing is just more of that journey. How we homeschool is as individual as how and where we find God because it is ultimately an expression of faith. No one takes their child away from the norm in this conformist society without some act of faith and love.
Classic homeschooling at its worst is more like checklists and pushing towards an excellence that can't really be achieved without God's perfect intervention. But at its best is a glimpse into the origin of humanity's soul. The basics of society's building blocks.
Charlotte Mason at its worst is nothing more than a dumping ground of scattered ideas and loose ends. But at its best is an entry way into greater faith and a wonderful taste of the greatness this world has offered in the past and continues to offer.
|
|
|
Dear Julia,
I just love what you wrote! I also love what some of the other moms have written. Many of us are really searching for the most "holy" way in which to homeschool. It is awesome to realize how God uses EVERYTHING to bring us closer to Him.
Blessings,
Brenda (mom to 6)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 25 2005 at 8:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
| How is Ruth Beechick different from CM? Anyone care to elaborate? |
|
|
Ruth Beechick has a very common-sense and "tutoring" approach. She advocates using games, manipulatives, and that kind of thing to teach basic literacy and numeracy. I read her books when I was first homeschooling and it was like having an experienced aunt or grandma giving me tips.
She doesn't have anything against textbooks per se, so doesn't speak against them as strongly as CM, but she does advise that you tailor the textbook to fit the child, not the child to fit the textbook. She's not much of a fan of workbooks or busywork.
She also has what I would call a "holistic" approach to learning and thinking which is similar to CM's. For example, I remember reading that she said "reading comprehension" wasn't a real, definable concept. The educators try to break down "comprehension" into a bunch of skill subsets and then drill on those subsets. But really, all this does is turn the child off of reading.... to learn to comprehend, you should read, read and learn to enjoy reading.
One tip that helped me greatly which I read in one of her books was that you should let children keep reading "easy" books to develop fluency. Suppose you have a child that can read at a fourth grade level. Well, there's no problem with challenging him by having him read books at the upper edge of his competence, HOWEVER, it's also very good and healthy for him to be reading books at a second grade level as well. That way he's consolidating or overlearning what he's already got a grasp on.
She also mentioned that in a study done where one group of Kindergarteners did science exploration projects, "real life math" and art all year, while another group drilled most of the school day on academic reading and math -- the first group were WAY ahead of the second group on reading and other academic abilities by third grade.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: April 25 2005 at 9:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The other contribution of Ruth Beechik to my thinking is in the area of grammar. She says that we ought to see grammar as a language - it is interesting in itself but doesn't have much to do with learning to write. She says that when we confuse the study of grammar with writing, we make the mistake of focusing on the science of language rather than the creation of ideas.
Ruth is American and her books are nice and short. I loved her book for language and thinking for young kids. We wore ours out.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
juliecinci
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Ohio
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: April 25 2005 at 10:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
julia s. wrote:
I found your post interesting. I grew up in a devout Catholic household and I was very devout and sincere in my faith. I even wanted to hear the calling to become a nun, but I never received that call. |
|
|
Even without being in a devout household, I always did want to do something important and faith-filled with my life. I understand that hunger.
julia s. wrote:
I was reading Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance and in my trying to understand the main character better I ended up reading three books on Buddhism and took a four year detour into Buddhist meditation. I left my Catholic faith behind, like all else in my life (or so I thought) and tried to find the peace that I could not find in my life up until then. The Catholic faith teaches about faith really well, but in fairness I think the Buddhists have a good handle on peace like no where else. And what I learned during that time I take with me on my journey. |
|
|
I appreciate hearing about other people's journeys through faith. Thanks for sharing.
julia s. wrote:
| Oddly enough the Buddhist saying that when the student is ready the teacher will appear -- never happened. In fact I was reading Natalie Goldberg's Long Quiet Highway when she was talking to her Buddhist teacher and told him that she felt as if she were actually Jewish and he said that was natural that Buddhist reveal ultimately who we essentially are and if she felt she were Jewish she should go there. It was at this time that I thought about who ultimately I was and it was Catholic. And from that day I moved back toward my faith, but with a much more mature understanding of myself and the faith. |
|
|
This is precisely why I haven't left the faith all together. I came to a point where I could see that I was Christian - deep down and in my outlook. Christianity and I are joined together and I can't extricate myself from it without losing or denying too big a part of who I am.
This process of re-evaluation has opened me to more ways to understand Christian faith. And I've found it very interesting that while I still have differences with the Catholic church (as institution), I find many aspects of Catholic faith and practice appealing and nurturing.
julia s. wrote:
Hsing is just more of that journey. How we homeschool is as individual as how and where we find God because it is ultimately an expression of faith. No one takes their child away from the norm in this conformist society without some act of faith and love. |
|
|
Completely agree.
julia s. wrote:
| Classic homeschooling at its worst is more like checklists and pushing towards an excellence that can't really be achieved without God's perfect intervention. But at its best is a glimpse into the origin of humanity's soul. The basics of society's building blocks. |
|
|
Well said. I agree.
julia s. wrote:
| Charlotte Mason at its worst is nothing more than a dumping ground of scattered ideas and loose ends. But at its best is an entry way into greater faith and a wonderful taste of the greatness this world has offered in the past and continues to offer. |
|
|
Perhaps this might be true int he hands of American homeschoolers, but her school sure sounded anything but loose ends! Lol. I agree with your assessment of it at its best.
And in our lives, CM has been the door swinging wide into humanity and the human predicament... in its glory and abasement.
julia s. wrote:
| This is really long and rambling. I'm just trying to make sense of my straying thoughts that betray a more humble thinker than most of the wise women on this board. Thanks for letting me go on. |
|
|
Your post moved me. Thank you.
Julie
__________________
Julie
Homeschooling five for fourteen years
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Genevieve
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: April 27 2005 at 6:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Looks like Ruth Beechick is another author worth reading into .... what would you recommend me reading? I've read a lot of CM books but nothing by Beechick.
Genevieve
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Leonie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2831
|
| Posted: April 27 2005 at 6:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I like Ruth Beechick's "The Homeschool of Questions and Answers" - at least, I think that's the title.
I also like her You Can Teach Your Child Successfully and The Three Rs series for the early grades.
Leonie in Sydney
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 28 2005 at 5:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Leonie wrote:
| I also like her You Can Teach Your Child Successfully and The Three Rs series for the early grades. |
|
|
These are the ones I have too.
__________________
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: April 28 2005 at 8:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Leonie wrote:
I have always felt that life and literature were our spine - obviously I am not a classical homeschooler.
|
|
|
Leonie,
I have been thinking about this.
The "literature" part IS what classical education, in my definition, is about. And the life part is included, though in a slightly different way than you mean it, I think.
The Ignatian goal of education is to form the student to "think, speak, and act well." The speaking part incorporates writing. The "efficient means" of this kind of education has always been the "great books". Classically educated people learn Latin and Greek so they can read the Ancient and Christian classics in the original languages. In other words, the Latin and Greek are FOR literature and to some extent, FOR life (because the theory is that those inflected languages train the mind to think precisely and logically).
The belief was that reading, thinking about, and writing/talking about great books would form the student's mind and heart and will. This is also what CM would say, though using different words.
I think where what classical education (in this old-fashioned conception) differs from CM and from what you and Elizabeth are talking about is that you wouldn't focus mostly on the golden oldies of lit -- the Greeks, the Romans, the medievals-- and on philosophy and theology per se but more on the riches of contemporary literature and learning through community experiences and so on. Plus, you wouldn't necessarily think classical languages were the ONLY or best route to training in logical, precise thinking. I'm not saying that you avoid these things altogether since I know Michael Foss read Dante intensively and several of Leonie's boys have acquired Latin, but just that it's not so central a part of your curriculum.
Am I going too far trying to put my words in your mouths?? I hope not! I have to say I would agree that classical literature and classical languages aren't the ONLY route to a good, thorough education. And I suppose that's why I call myself CM as well as CE, because I think our more modern tradition has lots of treasures too.
I've read lots of very elevated descriptions of class ed that don't fit into my worldview very well and in that sense I'm not a very good representative of CE, at least the "well trained mind" or Veritas Press version. I don't like reading that CE is for the intellectual elite, blah blah. I have a mentally disabled son and my educational theories have to incorporate him as a creature equally made in God's image and equally beloved and precious to our Lord as any of my other kids, and with his own unique and irreplaceable role to play in the human story.
So CM and unschooling ideas also play a part in my conception of what education is about but again, I use them to fill out my ideas of what CE is essentially about -- the "unschooling" part helps me round out the Ignatian goal of a "love for things of the mind" and ability for "self-activity", ie learning actively not just having learning passively forced upon you. The consent of the child's will is very important to CM, and unschooling, AND CE at least in the Catholic Ignatian definition.
I'm not trying to make you, Leonie or Elizabeth, out to be closet classical educators, I promise! -- just trying to say that the distinction lies slightly elsewhere than on an emphasis on life and literature -- imo
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Living Learning
Topic: Real Learning, CM, and Classical ed.
