| Author | |
julia s.
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 9:11am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
The most erroneous fact of the Murray article and the one the whole article is balancing on is this
Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.
This is simply not true. A score of 100 on an IQ test means that is where the average person scores (think of a whole lot of people). Everyone else falls above and below this in equal proportions. That means most are going to be around 100 add to that those who fall above 100 and you have a clear majority of our children being average or above average on the IQ tests.
Problem number two with the article
We can hope to raise his grade. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him.
If he is talking about raising an IQ maybe not (but whether these scores are completely fixed is arguable), but it will open new vistas. Like what words mean when they read them or how to present an idea to your congressman who wants to put a highway down the center of your farm in a clear concise way that expresses your ideas. Or simply to write a poem.
I don't know if it is the two cups of coffee I drank this morning, or not, but I'm a little skeptical of his "ideas".
That says nothing about the quality of the lives that should be open to everyone across the range of ability. I am among the most emphatic of those who think that the importance of IQ in living a good life is vastly overrated. My point is just this: It is true that many social and economic problems are disproportionately found among people with little education, but the culprit for their educational deficit is often low intelligence. Refusing to come to grips with that reality has produced policies that have been ineffectual at best and damaging at worst.
I would again disagree. Children, of any IQ level do benefit from an educational system that gives them the tools for making a living. Even in Jim Trelease's Read Aloud Handbook is practically a thesis on this. There are too many problems in society to point to a single factor -- drugs, crime, high interest rates, etc... Murray hides behind some, really I'm a nice guy telling you a hard truth conclusion. But he didn't support his conclusion at all throughout the entire article.
Edited for correction.
__________________
julia
married to love of her life
with ds12 ds8 ds3 and ds1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 9:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Bookswithtea wrote:
| I should preface this with the fact that I am kind of revisiting my entire philosophy of education. I'm looking into all sorts of things I researched briefly years ago and then quickly discarded in favor of CM. I'm giving up old prejudices and favorites and trying to look at things with fresh eyes. Classical Ed. is one of the ideas I'm looking at. |
|
|
Maybe a good time to revisit how you started this topic, Books? Were you looking again at classical education ideas and wondering if they were essentially elitist or just associated sometimes with elitism?
I went a bit off on my hobby horse yesterday, I think  .
I suppose in the context that we have been talking about classical education on other threads, it is targeted towards memorizing as a groundwork for further education. Certainly within the Catholic Church memorizing has been a tried and true method for getting a thorough educational grounding. As you mentioned, Marva Collins relied on plenty of memorization (along with inspiring discussions of excellent literary works) in her approach to disadvantaged city kids.
__________________
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 03 2009 at 10:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Bookswithtea wrote:
| But it was birthed and developed in times when the average person did not attend school. In the middle ages, wasn't this the education of kings and their sons (and possibly some monks/priests)? Isn't this the education of the wealthy and most privileged of society, who were being prepared to essentially run society in the future? |
|
|
Bookswithtea wrote:
| Moving into the future a bit, I know that the majority of Colonial America was literate (more literate than we are today, in fact), but I don't think they all knew their Greek and Latin? Education in America was not compulsory till somewhere in the 1800's, and I don't think the one room schoolhouses that educated Laura Ingalls were teaching a full Classical Curriculum? |
|
|
I read that for entrance to Harvard you had to be able to pass both a Greek and Latin test. (I can't find the article online anymore but here's a mention Obviously, most people did not enter Harvard in those days.
I also found this --
Latin Grammar Schools
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stellamaris
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 26 2009
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2732
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 10:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Perhaps one overlooked asset in classical education is the habits of thought it can produce. Memorization is a prime example of this, and has really been the basis of all successful education throughout history (the Greeks memorized the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Jews memorized the Old Testament, etc.). This was done using recitation. Also, scientifically speaking, we know that memorization and broad exposure to language and concepts actually helps to develop the brain physiologically. So no one will be hurt by exposure to classical education unless they are being negatively pushed to engage the material beyond their level of comprehension.
Just a comment on IQ tests: They only tested certain types of intelligence. They are not always accurate, especially in a situation where a child might have some kind of physical or neurological impairment. And I believe Mr. Murray is correct about 50% of all students falling below 100 IQ points (the average). As I recall from my long-ago statistics courses, the average of a standard Bell curve distribution (which is what they use for IQ testing) divides the distribution exactly in half, meaning half do indeed fall below the average. I can't really see that this matters one way or the other for us as homeschooling parents. Our children are what they are, they have their own strengths and weaknesses, and so the idea that Willa (I think) discussed above about learning to mastery is more practically useful for us than any IQ test might be. Actually, this idea is causing much self-examination, because it is so easy for me to fall into the "your so-and-so years old and should be doing this...." pattern and to try to push the children or hurry them along to fit some pre-conceived notion of "level" that has nothing to do with when they are ready!
__________________
In Christ,
Caroline
Wife to  dh 30+ yrs,ds's 83,85,89,dd's 91,95,ds's 01,01,02,grammy to 4
Flowing Streams
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 11:07am | IP Logged
|
|
|
It is true that nobody have to take an IQ test to receive a Classical Education. But it is still true that people tend to think that Classical Education is not for everybody,that you have to be particularly smart to "take" to that kind of education. Moreover, I think that many people see Classical Education as irrelevant to today's world. After all who needs Plato and Aristotle to function in today's world. And Latin? it is a dead language after all...
I think,though, that before we answer the question "Is Classical Education for everyone? or "should everyone be educating this way?" we should define Classical Education. I know it is a daunting task. But really, what makes an education, classical? is it the content? is the method? is it its focus on the stages of development?
__________________
Natalia
http://pannuestrodecadadia.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 1:09pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Natalia wrote:
| I think,though, that before we answer the question "Is Classical Education for everyone? or "should everyone be educating this way?" we should define Classical Education. I know it is a daunting task. But really, what makes an education, classical? is it the content? is the method? is it its focus on the stages of development? |
|
|
I think you're right but where to start?
Different people seem to have different notions.
As Catholics I suppose we can take what the Church says as primary evidence.
As Caroline said, I suppose in one way it's a side issue for us as home educators because we can decide what we think is suitable for our families and our children.
But in another way it's valuable to think about these things because it may help us to decide what our goal is with regard to education and what the best way is to meet it.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
julia s.
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 1:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think Murray assumption is that colleges changed their criteria because they are trying to cater to everyone who wants a degree. He believes this is a result of a belief from the colleges that everyone should have or even perhaps deserves a degree.
I think colleges and universities changed their standards for the same reason banks gave everyone loans -- they make money doing it. I also believe that the educational system is so confused right now that universities have to make up the lack of skills of students who enter with high scores in high school and an ability to pass the SATs ect., but do not know how to function at a basic college level.
I'm sorry Books if my tone earlier was a little aggressive. I guess I was worried that you would doubt yourself, especially based on that article. Over the years I've come to admire you and your tenacity in educating your children that I wanted to calm any concerns you had. Oh yeah, and there was that two cups of coffee .
__________________
julia
married to love of her life
with ds12 ds8 ds3 and ds1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bookswithtea
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 07 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2621
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 3:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wow!
We had our last class day today, and I just finally got through all the posts. What an amazing discussion! Thank you all so much for taking this subject on. Its been really eating at me and I needed to hear lots of opinions to help me. Thank you...so much.
Fwiw, I was thinking of Classical Ed. in the light of the Kreeft article I referred to and Natalia quoted, The Well Trained Mind, MODG, and the Memoria Press folks. They all seem to be focusing on the trivium/quadrivium, latin, heavy emphasis on memorization in the early years, the study of Greece and Rome, etc...These are the things I associate with Classical Education. While other methods may also have memorization, or study Greece and Rome more than others, its doing most of these things, teaching Latin to first graders etc that would lead me to label someone a classical educator.
I confess I get a little bugged when CE apologists talk as though their method focuses more on beauty, truth, virtue etc than other methods. There now, you now know I have a tiny bias *against* CE because some of their proponents do sound like they think other methods are sub standard. I'm more than willing to grant that its a fine way to educate. But I don't think its necessarily the *best* way to educate.
I'm not sure there is one best way to educate. I used to think CM was the best way. Then I had 6 kids and my entire schoolyear fell apart like a house of cards. And I had to resort to methods I wouldn't have touched 2 yrs ago. That's what really got me started in re-visiting philosophy of Ed. I discovered my children are doing fine in spite of having a very NOT Charlotte Mason year. (ssssshhhh, don't let this out too far on the board  ) So anyway, this has really made me want to reconsider other methods that I may have discarded too quickly. MP's catalogue arriving was the impetus for me re-reading a bit about CE.
For me, one of the biggest questions still revolves around what I perceive to be CE proponent's opinion that CE is for everyone, in light of the article I linked, and also in light of the fact that its reputation as "it works" is tied to the fact that it was tested only on the privileged until very recently.
Quote:
| Murray says that way too many people are going to college--people that cannot handle a college-level education. Therefore, college-level work has dipped in order to accomodate those kids that cannot handle higher level work. As a result, kids who are academically gifted (or the elite, which he calls them) are left swaying in the wind because they are given work that is way too easy for them. Murray is their champion saying that they deserve a more rigorous curriculum. |
|
|
I like that the article is bold and politically incorrect.  I wasn't offended when I read it. And I think I do agree that extra vocabulary drill (or whatever) really isn't going to open new vistas for that student. What is a vista, though? I don't see the sole purpose of education as a successful career. Its also recognition and appreciation of what is beautiful, good, holy and true. It is oriented toward Heaven. So to be honest, I find myself asking myself, what good is extra vocabulary drill going to do to appreciate beauty and get to Heaven?
Willa wrote:
A book called Norms and Nobility by David Hicks makes the point that traditionally, education was pursuit of an ideal. Everyone failed to some extent. There is no ideally educated person. Who could say "I am as educated as a person could possibly be?" Education is a uniquely personal interaction with knowledge; the horizon just keeps stretching out before you. Yet the effort, the striving towards the ideal, brought us beyond ourselves to the extent that we were willing to put in the effort to teach and learn....
The very failure to achieve the ideal was fruitful. Humans do better striving against odds. David Hicks makes the point that now, by "norming" things on a statistical curve we've done a disservice to everybody. The "above average" feel pretty good about themselves just the way they are. The "below average" feel they don't measure up. And the "norm" -- the perfect average -- just doesn't exist. He is a statistical fantasy, and a sterile one. Whereas the ideal type isn't sterile -- everyone has to work to approach that, and can never exceed it. |
|
|
I love this, Willa. Very helpful to me. I have a child now to whom school is too easy. This helped me to realize that she going to need to be pushed in ways I didn't need to push the others. I do not want to encourage educational complacency.  I also like the idea of working towards an ideal and that that will always produce fruit. But I am not sure I am willing yet to give CE their assumption that their version of education really *is* the ideal.
CrunchyMom, I can't listen to the lecture you listed.  I am limited in my ability to download per day (satellite carrier. ).
The issue of learning a trade is somewhat peripheral to the discussion, to me. A fine mechanic can still appreciate Shakespeare, but maybe differently than a Greek scholar (or maybe not?). Reading Shakespeare can help everyone to learn to appreciate beauty, truth, etc. And memorization in the early years can benefit everyone, I suppose. I'm not sure that I'm convinced of the idea that the memory work acts as pegs for further learning. I'm still musing on that idea. If its true, then I may need to revisit that idea in our homeschool. But learning Latin from 3rd grade on...is it more ordered to Beauty, Truth, and Heaven, than other methodologies? That is part of the question to me. Just because it was successful with the privileged does not, to me, mean it will be successful in ordering most people toward Truth, Beauty, Heaven, and a desire to strive for fruitful education. I need more of a reason than "It worked in the middle ages".
Willa wrote:
Marva Collins relied on plenty of memorization (along with inspiring discussions of excellent literary works) in her approach to disadvantaged city kids.
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with Marva Collins.
I have to go get ready for fish fry and stations. I'm looking forward to talking more about this.
__________________
Blessings,
~Books
mothering ds'93 dd'97 dd'99 dd'02 ds'05 ds'07 and due 9/10
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stellamaris
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 26 2009
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2732
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 4:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, I think that learning Latin had a definite purpose. I don't think they had it in the curriculum just because it was Latin per se. It was the international language of the educated class, and most of the textbooks were written in Latin. Some of the available ancient works were also in Greek, so that is why Greek was learned as well. In today's world, English fulfills these purposes. I've noticed in reading theology, most of the works are in English, French, and German. So here again we need to determine the purpose of a given curricular choice, and not just mindlessly copy what was done in the past. Having said that, I confess that my children all studied Latin at the high school level, so I do think it has some value!
__________________
In Christ,
Caroline
Wife to dh 30+ yrs,ds's 83,85,89,dd's 91,95,ds's 01,01,02,grammy to 4
Flowing Streams
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 5:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
stellamaris wrote:
| It was the international language of the educated class, and most of the textbooks were written in Latin. Some of the available ancient works were also in Greek, so that is why Greek was learned as well. |
|
|
That's what I understand too.
Pope Pius XI, in Divini Illius Magistri, made an appeal that the Church, at least, preserve some teaching of Latin:
Quote:
| Hence in accepting the new, he (the teacher) will not hastily abandon the old, which the experience of centuries has found expedient and profitable. This is particularly true in the teaching of Latin, which in our days is falling more and more into disuse, because of the unreasonable rejection of methods so successfully used by that sane humanism, whose highest development was reached in the schools of the Church. |
|
|
It's very true though that the reasons for learning Latin nowadays aren't quite as direct and practical as they were back when it was the language of literacy.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BrendaPeter
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 981
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 7:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa wrote:
It's very true though that the reasons for learning Latin nowadays aren't quite as direct and practical as they were back when it was the language of literacy.
|
|
|
True, but the study of both Latin & Greek stands apart like few other disciplines in developing the mind. Reminds me alot of the game of chess which stretches your mind in a way that not too many things do. That's one thing about the method of classical education that I can't argue with.
Great thread!
__________________
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 03 2009 at 8:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
BrendaPeter wrote:
True, but the study of both Latin & Greek stands apart like few other disciplines in developing the mind. Reminds me alot of the game of chess which stretches your mind in a way that not too many things do. That's one thing about the method of classical education that I can't argue with.
|
|
|
I agree. Syntax is natural logic. And the syntax of a foreign language, especially a highly sophisticated one like Latin or Greek, is an intensive training in logic. It's probably no accident that both reading comprehension and writing ability have declined quite a bit since Latin left the curriculum.
Cheryl Lowe's take on it here
Also, since we've been discussing Peter Kreeft's article, here it is: What is Classical Education?
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stellamaris
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 26 2009
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2732
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 8:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Peter Kreeft says:
"The first and foundational purpose of education is not external but internal: it is to make the little human a little more human, bigger on the inside.
The primary end of classical education, then, is in the student. But the student is a human being, and according to all the religions of the world (and therefore according to the vast majority of all people who have ever lived, in all times, places, and cultures), the ultimate end or final cause of a human being is something more than simply the mature flourishing of human powers, especially the powers of mind, in this life. If this is true—if in fact this life is a gymnasium to train for another, sterner combat—then the ultimate purpose of classical education is there."
Food for thought here, and perhaps an answer to my question (other post) about the purpose, not only of classical education but of all education. Thanks, Willa. You would think after so many years, I would know what my purpose in homeschooling is, but it seems to have changed and deepened over the course of time. I am really going to pray about these thoughts you all have discussed; I do believe God will teach me the wisdom I need to have in order to accomplish His will.
__________________
In Christ,
Caroline
Wife to dh 30+ yrs,ds's 83,85,89,dd's 91,95,ds's 01,01,02,grammy to 4
Flowing Streams
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mom3aut1not
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 757
|
| Posted: April 03 2009 at 10:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Different people seem to mean different things by classical education. My take on it that a generally classical education uses the stages of development and has a framework involving classical history, great literature, memory work, and, at some point, classical languages. A strictly classical education has more emphasis on classical languages and a general philosophy like that found in A Latin-Centered Curriculum. In any case I consider the aim of a classical education is to develop a person intellect not primarily for its own sake or to make a dainty esthete but to make a person aware of his place in God's story and world and grateful for His mercy. Charlotte Mason's philosophy of education had pretty much the same goals but a slightly different approach. She had more subjects and less Latin (although she did have it in the curriculum) , but CM and CE have a lot in common. That, at least, is my take. I have to confess that I have thought less on the exact details of both approaches than how I can use either or both with my remaining student who is not what most people think of as a classically educated child. My biggest departure from either approach is in math. I won't go into that right now.
I don't think that a classical education is only for the intellectual elite. I am not planning to do Latin any time soon with Joseph, but I don't see why I can't use other elements for him -- and he's definitely disabled. I don't think that was the idea in "olden days" either. My mother went to very rural schools in Vermont. She had three years of Latin in her teeny high school. She then went to the University of Vermont as a double major in Classical Languages and Mathematics. (She had three more years of Latin and three of Greek.) There were no tracks in her schools. Her first school didn't have separate classes as she attended a one room schoolhouse.
One of the things I learned from reading E. D. Hirsch is that educational achievement and social class are much more closely correlated in the U.S. than elsewhere. I think that people can do a lot more thinking and learning than they do -- and more than the experts expect, especially for poorer children -- and that classical education has much to offer all children. I do think that some people in this country are rather snobbish about who can benefit from a "good" curriculum as though people of less than stellar intellect don't think about anything other than football games or soaps. I wonder if such people would give a modern day Abraham Lincoln a chance. After all, his family was not "out of the top drawer" and he was so ... you know... rustic. Shouldn't he be given an education suitable for such a person ... you know... rather basic? <Put an icon that snorts here.>
If I recall correctly (from Left Back and other books on education), the traditional idea of American education pre-Dewey was that the same curriculum, pretty much, was offered to all students, but some kids didn't make it to the end. That is, some kids would go to 8th grade, some to high school, some to the end of high school, and a few beyond. Dewey and others of like mind put a premium on finishing high school even if the courses had to be lightweight to do so. They thought only about 10% of the population (obviously the "right sort" in their minds) should have a classical education and the rest of the population should have a "useful" education to prepare them for a happy existence as minions. I don't understand why they thought this a more democratic education than everyone having the same sort of program. (They really did think so!)
Lastly, I think an education that is purely servile, purely functional, is a disservice for any child, but if we really want a Catholic education, we have to go beyond the servile to the good, the true, and the beautiful. To me that is the essence of a CM or a classical education. Memorization or nature walks or whatever are means to that end. Personally I tend to wobble over the CM/CE line -- or at least a Spec Ed version of both.
My rather scattered $.02,
__________________
Deborah
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stellamaris
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 26 2009
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2732
|
| Posted: April 04 2009 at 2:12am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Deborah writes: "I don't understand why they thought this a more democratic education than everyone having the same sort of program."
For those who want to understand the political and philosophical underpinnings of the modern American educational system, I recommend The NEA: A Trojan Horse in America. It is a sobering account of how and why humanist, socialist, and atheistic ideas have permeated our public school system. The democratic system was the one which gave each student the opportunity to learn to their highest ability level (pre-Dewew). The system today is more socialistic in nature-everyone learns to the same level, none higher, none lower.
__________________
In Christ,
Caroline
Wife to dh 30+ yrs,ds's 83,85,89,dd's 91,95,ds's 01,01,02,grammy to 4
Flowing Streams
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stellamaris
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 26 2009
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2732
|
| Posted: April 04 2009 at 9:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
As my last post on this topic ( I think I've beaten it to death in my mind!), I found this comparison of CM and classical methods written by Susan Wise Bauer (who is, of course, a proponent of classical education). It just clarified a lot of the specifics for me, so I hope it helps someone else as well.
__________________
In Christ,
Caroline
Wife to dh 30+ yrs,ds's 83,85,89,dd's 91,95,ds's 01,01,02,grammy to 4
Flowing Streams
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 04 2009 at 9:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Also this one The Classical Side of Charlotte Mason by Karen Glass
__________________
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 04 2009 at 10:53am | IP Logged
|
|
|
mom3aut1not wrote:
| If I recall correctly (from Left Back and other books on education), the traditional idea of American education pre-Dewey was that the same curriculum, pretty much, was offered to all students, but some kids didn't make it to the end. That is, some kids would go to 8th grade, some to high school, some to the end of high school, and a few beyond. Dewey and others of like mind put a premium on finishing high school even if the courses had to be lightweight to do so. They thought only about 10% of the population (obviously the "right sort" in their minds) should have a classical education and the rest of the population should have a "useful" education to prepare them for a happy existence as minions. I don't understand why they thought this a more democratic education than everyone having the same sort of program. |
|
|
This is what I remember, too. I understand that there was a sort of sea change in 1918. I think it was in Graves of Academe that I read this. The educational commission thought that education should be more "practical" and relevant to peoples' real lives. So the curriculum left liberal pursuits and targeted towards vo-tech and practical things like personal hygiene.
more here
I see classical education as reclaiming our older cultural pursuit of excellence. I have been thinking hard what Books said:
Quote:
| I confess I get a little bugged when CE apologists talk as though their method focuses more on beauty, truth, virtue etc than other methods. There now, you now know I have a tiny bias *against* CE because some of their proponents do sound like they think other methods are sub standard. I'm more than willing to grant that its a fine way to educate. But I don't think its necessarily the *best* way to educate. |
|
|
I don't really have an answer for that, Books, and will continue to ponder, but I do think certain principles are more true than others. Education is an art -- it is a matter of application of principles. The applications will differ according to needs and other circumstances. So in other words, it will be folly for me to try to pull Aidan through the same curriculum and methods that I used successfully with Liam, who was of an academic bent. Teaching is ultimately a relationship, as St Ignatius's system of classical education saw it. But I will have the same ideals for Aidan that I have for Liam -- that his natural potential is maximized and that to the extent he is able, he can partake of the Permanent Things.
So really, I would say Latin in first grade has nothing essentially to do with classical education. It may be a practical decision -- knowing that we want to bring our students to a certain level of proficiency in Latin, we may choose to start at a very early age because we know it is easier for small children to learn languages by immersion.
I think there is some reason for classical education proponents to claim that their method is the "best". In reality, every method does in some way. Otherwise, why on earth even spend the time and effort?
But I think sometimes people (and probably some classical proponents are in that category) get caught up in the extrinsic details of the method. Charlotte Mason says that they turn a "method" which should be flexible and based on genuine principles -- into a "system" -- which is rigid and programmed.
I don't know enough about Charles Murray to make a fair judgment, but in that article Books linked to, it soundss like he notices the system is broken -- which is absolutely true -- but he doesn't step outside the system enough. He still uses a Dewey-like ideal -- which to me seems too flawed to use. Separating out a few "elite" people to pursue higher academic goals is only a different form of "vo-tech", it seems to me. That's my essential problem with the modern view of education, and why I like classical, CM, unschooling and other methods that focus more on the interior human person whatever his or her IQ.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: April 04 2009 at 2:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
stellamaris wrote:
| As my last post on this topic ( I think I've beaten it to death in my mind!), I found this comparison of CM and classical methods written by Susan Wise Bauer (who is, of course, a proponent of classical education). It just clarified a lot of the specifics for me, so I hope it helps someone else as well. |
|
|
Well, the first line of this article sort of helps with defining a "classical education" in a way, I think, which makes it easier for me to address Books's original question (as Natalia suggested).
Quote:
| Are Charlotte Mason methods incompatible with classical education? Certainly not; Miss Mason was a classical educator herself, and although some of her recommendations differ from our recommendations, you should always remember that everyone who does classical education (including Charlotte Mason, the Bluedorns, Doug Wilson, Christine Miller, and ourselves) is adapting an old model to a modern context. |
|
|
So, if the definition of Classical Education is broad enough to include CM and other less rigid methodologies, than I would say that, imo, yes, it is the best education for everyone and not something for the intellectual elite.
I gather, though, that Books is seeing a classical education more narrowly defined since she "rejected" it in favor of Charlotte Mason in her early searchings, am I right?
Oh, and Willa, did you read all three articles that Books linked to or just the first of the series? I think you are right in that he is thinking "inside" the system. He sent his children to "regular" schools himself. I think he is probably trying to spur on debate in the mainstream establishment for practical solutions in the current system. He might even share some of our ideals (I do agree with a lot of your criticisms), but as much as I cling to my ideals, I don't really have any sort of notion that they will be implemented on a large scale. I think that it is useful to have some who will challenge the establishment without being completely counter cultural (as I feel I am and most in this discussion would be, yk?).
I have heard some compare home schooling today (which does seem to be a dark age intellectually) to the monasteries that kept western culture alive during the dark ages.
If those educated in this manner throughout history were indeed an elite few, I suppose it could be said that we homeschoolers are creating our own sort of elite--at least in the sense that it seems that given the choice (even given the experiment of compulsory education for all) most people will not choose this "superior" education. It is still chance of birth that offers it (God gave my children to me--a person desiring to provide this sort of education) just as it was chance of birth that people were born into noble families before. That doesn't mean that others aren't worthy or capable of having it--they just simply won't. It seems to be a similar situation just a bit topsy-turvy since the education was valued before by those destined to be "movers and shakers" and now its just me Joe Nobody who hope my child doesn't become President
Perhaps this is straying too far off subject? I also hope that though using the politically incorrect word elite a few times, I don't come across as sounding superior. On the contrary, I feel a burden of responsibility to pass on something I don't fully grasp myself!
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 04 2009 at 7:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
CrunchyMom wrote:
So, if the definition of Classical Education is broad enough to include CM and other less rigid methodologies, than I would say that, imo, yes, it is the best education for everyone and not something for the intellectual elite.
|
|
|
I suppose that's how I look at it.... otherwise I probably wouldn't like the method much. As Deborah says, I see things in it that are good for my special needs children, too.
Quote:
| Oh, and Willa, did you read all three articles that Books linked to or just the first of the series? |
|
|
I didn't, but I probably will this weekend!
Quote:
I have heard some compare home schooling today (which does seem to be a dark age intellectually) to the monasteries that kept western culture alive during the dark ages.
If those educated in this manner throughout history were indeed an elite few, I suppose it could be said that we homeschoolers are creating our own sort of elite--at least in the sense that it seems that given the choice (even given the experiment of compulsory education for all) most people will not choose this "superior" education.
.... I also hope that though using the politically incorrect word elite a few times, I don't come across as sounding superior. On the contrary, I feel a burden of responsibility to pass on something I don't fully grasp myself! |
|
|
THere's an interview with Father Fessio here which makes that point about homeschools being something like monasteries.
Totally agree about the feeling of responsibility for something I don't fully understand! Thank heavens, I know that this feeling was probably shared at times by saints and the like throughout history.... not that I am a saint, but that the feeling of working for something I don't totally understand isn't just ME
I suppose our feeling of responsibility is the reason we get so interested in what's best for our families and look for the "best" way. I do think any good thing, classical education included, will be adapted to its circumstances. Priorities come into play; we naturally suit our methods to our children. ... and so on.
__________________
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 : Philosophy of Education
Topic: philosophizing about Classical Education
