| Author | |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: April 15 2005 at 3:06pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Hello all!
My name is Kristine and I'm 30 yrs. old, a former PS kindergarten and first grade teacher, wife to a wonderful farmer and mother of 4 (for now!) We are just beginning our hs journey. My oldest ds just turned 5 and we've been trying out a pre-packaged Kindergarten curriculum since August of last year (I didn't think I was rushing it...he's been reading since he was 3).
Ever since we had our baby in Nov. I've been feeling really overwhelmed by what we have been doing "in school" (the amount of work, always pushing my little guy to finish up, stressing over falling behind, feeling frustrated at the lack of time to just hold him and read to him, etc.) I also wanted to start attending daily mass, but because we live in the country it takes 30 min. to get to church each way and I couldn't find a way to "fit it in" with our schedule. I said a prayer and then began looking at the 4reallearning website because a friend mentioned it to me. I just finished Elizabeth's book and am so grateful! Thank you, Elizabeth, and thank you, God! For so many years (as a PS teacher) I felt I was a slave to the SOLs, standardized test prep, a curriculum designed by someone else, etc. I just didn't realize that what I was doing as a hs mom was to basically keep the same teaching methods, ideology, tools, etc. and just do them at home. It occurred to me that I am making myself a slave to them all over again! This is why I have been so unhappy (I think). I want to do all of the fun things parents should be able to do with their kids and educate them in the process...I think CM might just be the answer for us.
Although I've been reading the archives, I can't find some answers to a few questions I have. Could someone please direct me to where I can find the answers, or answer my questions directly?
2. What are the differences b/w CM and a Classical approach? Is there any way to integrate the two?
Devoted to Our Mother Mary, & our intercessors, St. Anne and St. Isidore,
Kristine
mother of Luke Benjamin (5), Zachary John (3.5), Joshua Thomas (2), and Amy Josephine Anne (4 mos)
Back to Top
__________________
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: April 16 2005 at 12:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dear Kristine,
There is an article here by Susan Wise Bauer
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/charlottemason.html
that compares Charlotte Mason and Classical Education side by side. I agree with some of it and it might be a good place to start. I think she is right that CM was reclaiming a classical understanding of education. The ancient Greeks and Romans, and the Catholic church up past the Renaissance, believed that education taught the WHOLE person -- mind, heart and will, not just the brain. Sometime during the Enlightenment, we lost that understanding, and started focusing on pouring in information and teaching students what was "useful" for their life as a worker, not what was "good" for the student as a human being made in the image of God. In many ways, CHarlotte Mason was trying to go back to that traditional understanding of what education was.
However, I think if you asked ten people what the differences between CM and CE are, you would get ten different answers. There doesn't seem to be a complete consensus on what either of them are. One possible REAL difference is that classical education emphasized teaching the ancient languages and literature, ie Latin and Greek.
I think it is perfectly possible to integrate the two, because that's what I do personally. I find a LOT of overlap. My main goal is to form my children to be Catholic Christians with the consent of all the aspects of their human nature -- mind, heart, will, and body -- and Charlotte Mason and classical education both help me to do that.
Hope that helps and please ask if you have any questions or if anything I said was unclear --
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen T
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 927
|
| Posted: April 18 2005 at 9:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm just finishing up my first year of homeschooling an almost 12 yo, so take my comments with a huge shaker of salt  !
I read TWTM and loved all the structure, notebooks, lists, etc. I read lots of books about CM methods and loved the living books idea, etc. After much thought and prayer, I realized that TWTM or similar classical education would have been perfect for me, but not ds. Especially coming out of public school.
What I have taken from TWTM (that's the main book I used to understand classical ed; i know there are others) is the study of history in a somewhat chronological fashion. That doesn't mean we won't skip around a bit, but we're trying to at least cover the biggest ideas in civilization in an organized manner. We use a timeline on our wall to keep things in perspective and a book of centuries to keep track of more detail.
I have used Susan Wise Bauer's (one of the authors of TWTM) Story of the World as an outline for history, but most of our reading is from many other books, historical fiction, biographies, the Bible, and picture books.
We are also studying Latin before any other languages, but not just b/c it's classical. I took Latin in high school and have used it over and over throughout the years, including helping when I took French later in college. It's helpful not only for the vocabulary, but for the grammar. In fact, it was in teaching Latin grammar this year to ds that I uncovered his complete lack of English grammar knowledge - he couldn't even explain direct object/indirect object, or even knew what an adverb is.
Other than those, I can't think of anything we're doing that would fall under classical, but I think you can take the subjects you want to teach and find a CM way to teach them, for just about anything. We are still a work in progress, as I have to hold in check my overeagerness to plan and schedule 
Karen T
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
julia s.
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: April 19 2005 at 3:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My computer is acting flakey so hopefully this will make it through. I've given a lot of thought between the two and I'm not so sure the compromise between blending the methods would give you much satisfaction in the end.
Here's my understanding of both. The classical education TWTM, Bludorns, and Laura Berquist's book focus on method not information so much. They divide the developing mind into three different stages (sometimes four) and at each stage there are optimum activities or methods that you would imploy to train the mind (or as Berquist says the "imagination" of the mind -- the part of the mind that takes external information and makes sense of it). The rotation of history into four year cycles is pretty much TWTM curriculum preference this does not make it classical, but it does make the information orderly which is classical. Memorization, arguing and logical analysis are part of a classical education.
CM on the other hand says that content, great ideas, is the heart and meat of the curriculum (I'm not a latin giant so maybe it's curricula?). The content is the method and habits reinforce the learning of this content or great ideas.
CM said that children are complete persons who can engage great ideas they are not blank slates. The classic educator says that the mind needs to be mastered before it can make sense of the world around it.
If you truely believe that content is more important than method would you want to take time away from that to have your child memorize lists and poems and other things that the classists think important?
On the other hand, if you do think the mind needs this training and learning will yeild sloppy reasoning abilities without this training then you'll lose much of the content in the earlier years while you train your child's mind. You see this is where most people have trouble with the two -- whether they've consciously figured out the reason for the "rub" so to speak or they just feel frustrated at coming up short on both sides.
I don't have a solution to the two. I think CM allows a lot of the classical information and training in more than the classical allows for CM. You will end up memorizing things if you learn a foreign language or sing songs or just do picture study. However as the child advances in age she would lose (possibly) having the rudimentary skills of note taking and outlining and composition that the classical education would emphasize. Also, CM doesn't allow for the child when it reaches the age of argument (which sometimes shocks their parents who are not quite ready for it).
I think if you are flexible and watch what your child needs and what you want for their future too -- keeping a mindset of godliness and a gentle spirit -- you can find the right balance for you and your family.
I hope this helped and didn't make things worse. Perhaps someone else can clarify it even further. I've been thinking this through for myself, also, as I plan what do for my children's education and life.
__________________
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 20 2005 at 9:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
julia s. wrote:
If you truely believe that content is more important than method would you want to take time away from that to have your child memorize lists and poems and other things that the classists think important?
On the other hand, if you do think the mind needs this training and learning will yeild sloppy reasoning abilities without this training then you'll lose much of the content in the earlier years while you train your child's mind. You see this is where most people have trouble with the two -- whether they've consciously figured out the reason for the "rub" so to speak or they just feel frustrated at coming up short on both sides.
|
|
|
Hi Julia,
I really appreciate what you wrote. That is the "rub", as you say, and that's where maybe some of us end up hitting a wall.
I followed MODG curriculum fairly strictly for about 5 years but read some Charlotte Mason books during that time. Everytime I read the Charlotte Mason Companion (Karen Andreola) I would get very "dreamy" about how homeschooling could be but kept telling myself that I was probably being too romantic & not realistic. By the 6th year, I couldn't bring myself to make my ds memorize the lengths of rivers - that was going too far in my mind. I kept thinking "do I need to kill him with memorizing?"! Actually my oldest ds is an auditory learning & great at memorizing. We've both really enjoyed the poems and the Baltimore Catechism. I guess my question is how much memorizing is enough to keep it classical? I've read several places where Laura Berquist has said that (paraphrasing) memorization helps the imagination become docile. I'd love to read comments on that. (Maybe Willa has some Thomas Aquinas comments on memorization!)
We've probably set things up similarly to what you're doing (or thinking of doing). I think our overall philosophy is CM with alot of classical thrown in. IMHO, I really think that since so much of classical ties in with natural development, then doesn't much of it come naturally? I've tried to get classical down to the bare essence - memorization in the early years & learning latin & grammar in the middle years. My oldest is only 10 1/2 so I haven't really given much thought to the teen years.
Would love to hear more thoughts on this!
Blessings,
Brenda (mom to 6)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
julia s.
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: April 21 2005 at 7:48am | IP Logged
|
|
|
BrendaPeter wrote:
We've probably set things up similarly to what you're doing (or thinking of doing). I think our overall philosophy is CM with alot of classical thrown in. IMHO, I really think that since so much of classical ties in with natural development, then doesn't much of it come naturally? I've tried to get classical down to the bare essence - memorization in the early years & learning latin & grammar in the middle years. My oldest is only 10 1/2 so I haven't really given much thought to the teen years.
|
|
|
Actually my children are still young and I'm still trying to find a way that works for them. But I do agree that I'm not sure why there is such a profound emphasis on the different stages -- other than to make sure that you don't force a child to reason beyond their capabilities. Also, you don't want your child to just memorize tv commercials but be able to use their memory towards their future educational goals (even if your just guessing at them). I always think there is plenty to memorize -- even if you educate in a relaxed setting -- that you don't need to make up more lists than what comes naturally within the context of your studies.
My son has said for years now that he wants to grow up and be an inventor. It's almost a mantra with him. He'll also throw in other ambitions, but it always comes back to inventor. So in the back of my mind I'm making sure that he gets plenty of science, math, and next year I'll probably throw in Latin. He also likes Spanish -- as does my youngest son and next year I'm going to get them a video based spanish course (since my feable attempts at teaching them get way too sidetracked  ).
I've gone back and forth on which curriculum and style to follow and there are no clear answers. I'm thinking of going with Sonlight because it gives me the structure I need and provides a good baseline education that I can add to. Also it doesn't fall hard on either side of the CM -- classical argument, but leaves enough room to modify. I've considered MODG, but the content is just too uninspired for me to get enthusiastic about every day for a school term. What I do like about her program is never too hard for the child to achieve the goals laid out for that year (unlike TWTM imo). I think she lays out an excellent program for religion and her Harp and Laurel Wreath makes for an excellent memorization and dictation. AO and Mater Amblis (I probably butched the spelling on that) are also possibilities, but I need more hand holding than they offer (I think). But I'm still searching and praying on this. I have until July because that's when I get the money to spend on the books and stuff. And by then I could have completely talked myself into a different direction.
I'm with Brenda, if Willa or anyone else has more to add --- I'm hoping find some answers here .
__________________
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 21 2005 at 8:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Willa,
I'm sorry - I hope I didn't put you on the spot with Thomas Aquinas! I'm just so impressed with your knowledge of his works.
Blessings,
Brenda (mom to 6)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BrendaPeter
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 981
|
| Posted: April 21 2005 at 8:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
julia s. wrote:
| But I do agree that I'm not sure why there is such a profound emphasis on the different stages -- other than to make sure that you don't force a child to reason beyond their capabilities. Also, you don't want your child to just memorize tv commercials but be able to use their memory towards their future educational goals (even if your just guessing at them). I always think there is plenty to memorize -- even if you educate in a relaxed setting -- that you don't need to make up more lists than what comes naturally within the context of your studies. |
|
|
Hi Julie,
I guess it's not just me? Thank you so much for stating that. It's taken me years (literally!) to figure this out, so I'm thrilled for you to realize this earlier in the game.
We aren't really using any "curriculum" per se at the moment. As I mentioned, I followed the MODG curriculum very strictly for quite awhile. Then I realized that I would be better off going back to Laura's book "Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum" and using it as a guide. I've been looking at St. Thomas Aquinas Academy too, but there are things there I would do differently. After 6 years, I'm very comfortable with what we're doing and finally have the confidence. I guess my main concern is the record-keeping aspect in the high school years, but I'm not even sure that's a big issue.
These days I have the older kids (9&10) do math, latin (workbook & memory work), poetry (memorization), catechism (memorization), copywork (which is also handwriting) or grammar (we really like Seton's English workbook but I wouldn't use it every year), spelling (twice/week) in the mornings. They also do Rosetta Stone (spanish) 2-3X/week. My 2 oldest are boys and enjoy reading but I do schedule it in (or they'll just play all day!). I have them read twice/day for 1/2 hour a book I pick (chapter book). Laura Berquist calls it "directed" reading. Also I've been reading "The Writer's Jungle" and have been trying some of the ideas Julie suggests both in the book on through her daily e-mails.
In the afternoons, we notebook Science & History or Lapbook. Right now we're working on Pope JP II notebooks that Alice posted plans for(what a great project!). I'm convinced that these projects really help us all with the burnout factor.
Where CM's ideas really helped me was in the area of doing less & doing them well. For instance, we have been following MODG on which poems to memorize and I'm realizing that it's just too much (yes, it takes me awhile ). Next year, I'm planning to write up a schedule where the kids actually pick which poems they would like to memorize and then I plan to limit the number so that they have time to memorize them well & to savor them. I think half the problem is the culture in which we live that insists you expose your kids to tons of things so that they dabble but never go too deeply. Our piano teacher is so impressed with our kids & their musical abilities. I keep telling him it's because piano is their only activity & they have the time to focus on it & get good at it.
Thank you again for the great comments.
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 21 2005 at 10:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh Brenda,
Don't worry about putting me on the spot. We went on a trip -- to Thomas Aquinas College in fact for my oldest son -- and I'm just getting back on track now. The comments on CE/CM have been very interesting and I thought Julie's point on the differing emphases -- content vs "tools" -- was well made. CM DOES emphasize content -- again and again -- while classical ed nowadays, because of the influence of Dorothy Sayers, seems to run on a model of "stages".
But please do keep in mind that Sayers "stages" are a relatively modern application of her view of psychology/childhood development upon the ancient "liberal arts" model. What the authors of Well Trained Mind and others propose as a "classical education" would not have been recognizable as such to Catholics before the 20th century.
I suppose that since I use both, I am more inclined to emphasize the similarities between CE and CM than the differences. Others, who have a strong preference for one over the other, usually tend to emphasize the difference.
My reasons for wanting to find CM in class ed is that Education as a method was around LONG before CM lived. St Ignatius' order, THomas Aquinas and their influence on educational tradition was immense. I like to trace things backwards rather than re-invent the wheel, and so I prefer to see how CM fits into the tradition rather than how she innovated.... I suppose I don't usually trust innovations unless they are reclamations of past truths.
Anyway, back to the memorization question -- I have a book called Thomas Aquinas and Education but, ahem, don't know where I put it and don't remember what it said about memorizing. I did find this site which discusses Memory according to Aquinas as a subset of Prudence.
htt
p://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/phi205/memory.htm
Some of the things it says on this site are that according to Aquinas:
What you memorize should be emotionally and intellectually interesting; that makes it more memorable.
You should meditate upon what you wish to memorize, because what is engraved upon the mind by much pondering is easily remembered.
Also spiritual things or ideas are remembered more easily if they are linked to some image, preferably an unusual one.
Also, memory is helped by orderly classification in one's mind, so there is sort of a progress from one memorized thing to another.
About memory as a faculty, he says it is part of prudence -- that is, remembering things helps us make judgements about what to do, ie you couldn't go to the grocery store if you couldn't remember how to get there. But he believes memory, though a natural faculty, can be trained and strengthened by use.
CM Also thought one's abilities should be trained, but in the course of acquiring living ideas and good habits. In other words, "training the faculties" shouldn't be the primary GOAL of learning, but only the by-product. The knowledge gained should be worthy in itself. I think the Catholic Church in its thinking on education assumed the same thing, so CM was talking not so much against Classical Education, but against the more modern Enlightenment notion that learning should be "useful" for something else, not valuable and worthy in its own right.
I'm typing in a hurry so I am not sure I made this clear!
__________________
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 21 2005 at 1:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh, and also I would add that I don't think that "content" vs "method" is really a dichotomy -- that you need to have one but not the other.
Charlotte Mason said that what she called "knowledge" HAD to be formative knowledge. In her Philosophy of Education, she talked about how just training people what they needed to know to function as workers in today's world was not nearly enough. It has to be eternal, valuable knowledge that would teach children how to be more human -- how to die for their country, how to live for God, not just how to get ahead in the world.
Classical education in the traditional sense taught the same thing, and you can see this in Laura Berquist's book and in Dorothy Sayers book. Knowledge has to be worthwhile and formative, ie there is a human "heritage" that must be transmitted.
The "tools" of learning are not to be taught in a vacuum -- in fact, it would be impossible to teach learning tools in a vacuum. Dorothy Sayers named these "tools" as that of Grammar, Dialectic/Logic, and Rhetoric. Briefly, grammar is the structure and the content. Logic is how to analyze, compare and contrast, detect unclear or false chains of reasoning. Rhetoric is the ability to express oneself. Obviously, content matters MUCH in these "tools". If I teach the "tools" to my kids solely by using Barney or the content of the Wiggles songs, my kid wouldn't REALLY know how to think and express himself to the extent of his human capacities. You see this often in the products of public schooling today. Kids are taught comprehension skills and thinking skills by means of twaddle. Therefore, they rightly despise these skills which are used as servants of unworthy, twaddly content. Plus, their minds are stocked with only this thin and unworthy content, so they don't really KNOW all that is worth knowing, nor do they realize what they don't know.
In other words, I personally think that Dorothy Sayers and Charlotte Mason included the same components in their thoughts upon education -- learning skills AND content were important. Charlotte Mason believed that learning was like eating a meal. You eat, ie take in the knowledge, and your skills (chewing, digesting, etc) are naturally employed and strengthened in this process. But you need the right "food" -- whole, nourishing, varied diet--- and you need to be willing to make the effort -- to "take and eat".
Dorothy Sayers emphasis was somewhat different. She didn't dismiss the importance of worthy content, not in the least, and like CM, she believed that the process was to a large extent natural, part of our heritage as humans made in God's image. I sort of like her ideas about the developmental stages because I see that small kids ARE very absorbent, older children like to argue and discern, and still older children usually find a way to express themselves even if it is only Gothic clothes and nose-piercing. Her point was that children WILL use these abilities on something, if only on memorizing advertisements and arguing about parental rules, and it is better to channel these energies into something worthwhile, the good, the true and the beautiful.
Charlotte Mason and Dorothy Sayers BOTH thought that our minds and abilities are strengthened by being exercised. Charlotte Mason talks about the baby who kicks randomly at first, then with more purpose as he gains experience and ability, and finally he is pushing himself up and walking. But he has to be nourished in order that he can summon the energy and vitality to continue to do these things. And the nourishment needs to be high quality.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: April 21 2005 at 1:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa,
I find your post on this issues fascinating. Now a couple of questions:
How is "modern" classical education different that traditional classical education? Do you see value in the classical education of let's say TWTM?
Second, on a practical level how do you combine CM and CE? Could you give me, if it isn't too much trouble, a run down of what you do in 7th grade? I tried this year a mix of this two approaches and ended up with something kind of muddy.
Third, do you have some books to recommend that have been useful to you?
Thanks,
Natalia
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 21 2005 at 8:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Natalia wrote:
Willa,
I find your post on this issues fascinating. Now a couple of questions:
How is "modern" classical education different that traditional classical education? Do you see value in the classical education of let's say TWTM?
|
|
|
Hi Natalia,
I do think there is value in TWTM. Its goal is a good liberal education, I believe, with a focus on the "Trivium" stages of Dorothy Sayers. I like a lot of the organizational ideas, and some of them are compatible with CM.
I suppose I have two reservations about the book. One is that religion plays such a small part in the curriculum. A Catholic's education should be "permeated with Christian piety" as Pope Pius XI wrote. It's true that a Catholic could take the TWTM methods and use Catholic content, ie stories of the saints, etc. and end up with an education that is indeed permeated with Catholic Christianity. So it's not a fatal reservation, just a reservation.
My other reservation is one that Elizabeth has made me sensitive to. Her concern is that the very method of TWTM, with all its orderliness and for lack of a better word "strictness" might more or less leave the student and his individualities out of the picture. In a way, it's not a "sacramental" mode of learning -- it's very bookish and what's more, as laid out doesn't leave much provision for the student's and the teacher's role in the process. If you do it as written, the student is going to be sitting at a table for several hours a day, and pushing through material at quite a fast clip. If I am not putting this well, it's my fault, not Elizabeth's
But both CM and traditional CE place great importance in the role of the student himself in accepting and understanding and "consenting" to knowledge. Aquinas says that if a teacher or book proposes information that the student is supposed to accept "on faith" without personal reasoning, then that is not real knowledge but only opinion. That I think is the reason that CM placed such importance upon "Living Ideas" rather than "horse in a mill facts" because Ideas can be understood by everyone even children and understanding the ideas actually broadens the grasp of the mind to understand more and more. Because we are human, we respond to and are influenced by the great stories and thoughts throughout time. That's almost the most importance function of education, to form the hearts and spirits of the young and almost every great culture has recognized this truth.... they all have legends, myths, fables, proverbs designed to pass on the heritage of wisdom. There's no such direct connection to the fact that the Amazon River is X miles long, for instance,and in fact we could be just as human without knowing that fact, though perhaps it's useful to be aware of in today's world. (But I don't know it, and if I needed to know I'd Google <G>)
I think following TWTM too closely might lead to too "facts-oriented" an approach, though I like and use some of their recommended resources especially at the high school level. Again, you could overcome this possible drawback by tailoring it a bit and in fact, the authors recommend that homeschoolers do so. Some homeschoolers however get overwhelmed by trying to follow the whole program and burn out, or burn their children out.
As to how modern classical education is different in general from the "old" kind, I think the older kind really emphasized learning Latin and Greek well enough to read and write in those languages. TWTM, MODG, and Kolbe don't require that, though Kolbe probably goes the furthest in that direction. I'm not sure about the Bluedorn's.
__________________
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 21 2005 at 8:47pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Natalia wrote:
Willa,
Second, on a practical level how do you combine CM and CE? Could you give me, if it isn't too much trouble, a run down of what you do in 7th grade? I tried this year a mix of this two approaches and ended up with something kind of muddy.
Third, do you have some books to recommend that have been useful to you?
|
|
|
Some books I really liked and was influenced by were "Norms and Nobility" by David Hicks and "Poetic Knowledge" by James Taylor. They were both really enlightening about that common ground I tried to describe between CE and CM. I also really like the Parent's Review articles posted on the Ambleside website, and CM's books.
About the 7th grade curriculum, I agree with Julie's point about flexibility being important. Not just the child's needs, but what is going on with the mom and the family. My oldest did a more classical curriculum in 7th, my next two were much less CE and more CM-- my second son responded SO well to theme-type studies based on Elizabeth's booklist-- and my fourth son is in 6th and is doing more classical. But all of them were a mixture, plus that "real life, real learning" theme which to me overrides all the methods -- that Catholic homeschooling should be Sacramental, and family-oriented, a matter of relationships and environment as well as conscious teaching and training.
My present sixth grader is studying Latin and Christian Greek, but using short lessons. He's also doing Logic -- part way through Introductory Logic and just starting Traditional Logic. He is doing diagramming for English grammar. I think of those as the "discipline" or teaching subjects. Math also fits in there, and working on the catechism.
His reading and writing is mostly CM "living books". I try to mix the more difficult classics with some easier reads. He narrates, mostly orally, sometimes in writing, and does copywork. Religion, history, literature, geography and science are covered this way and they overlap a lot of course. We use something like the Ambleside schedule for these subjects.
Then the next category is the "study" category. Picture study, composer study, nature study, handicrafts, drawing etc. Century book too fits in this category. I try to do these once a week, rotating through. I'd like to have some studies of the liturgical year in here.
Once in a while we put all this aside and do something else, whatever. Variety is refreshing. We usually try to keep going with the Math, Latin, and religion though.
I guess that for me the "languages" -- math, logic, Latin, Greek, English grammar -- are more classically oriented and the other ones are more done in the CM way. It seems to work for me. I like the balance between the different categories. Well, to be honest the "study" category is difficult for me. I think it is valuable, but too often push it aside.
I plan to continue this next year, using the Ambleside booklist, and continuing Latin, Greek and Logic.
I'd love to hear what you did, and what didn't work for you. Even though my oldest is a senior, I never feel like I *really* know what I'm doing. It seems to work out differently for each kid.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 7:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
| I do think there is value in TWTM. Its goal is a good liberal education, I believe, with a focus on the "Trivium" stages of Dorothy Sayers. I like a lot of the organizational ideas, and some of them are compatible with CM. |
|
|
] That is how I have used it. The book was my first, and I believe only, introduction to CE. Its order appealed to me. I like to start something at the beginning and progress in a linear fashion. I don't mind detours but I like to have something to come back to. TWTM provided that for me.
WJFR wrote:
| I suppose I have two reservations about the book. One is that religion plays such a small part in the curriculum. A Catholic's education should be "permeated with Christian piety" as Pope Pius XI wrote. It's true that a Catholic could take the TWTM methods and use Catholic content, ie stories of the saints, etc. and end up with an education that is indeed permeated with Catholic Christianity. So it's not a fatal reservation, just a reservation. |
|
|
That is what I have done. Even thought I can't honestly say that I educate the TWTM way. I basically use their 4 year cycle approach to history, the books they suggest, their activity guide for the booklist and maps. I also use their recommendations for logic.
WJFR wrote:
| My other reservation is one that Elizabeth has made me sensitive to. Her concern is that the very method of TWTM, with all its orderliness and for lack of a better word "strictness" might more or less leave the student and his individualities out of the picture. In a way, it's not a "sacramental" mode of learning -- it's very bookish and what's more, as laid out doesn't leave much provision for the student's and the teacher's role in the process. If you do it as written, the student is going to be sitting at a table for several hours a day, and pushing through material at quite a fast clip. If I am not putting this well, it's my fault, not Elizabeth's |
|
|
I agree with you and Elizabeth on this.
WJFR wrote:
| But both CM and traditional CE place great importance in the role of the student himself in accepting and understanding and "consenting" to knowledge. Aquinas says that if a teacher or book proposes information that the student is supposed to accept "on faith" without personal reasoning, then that is not real knowledge but only opinion. That I think is the reason that CM placed such importance upon "Living Ideas" rather than "horse in a mill facts" because Ideas can be understood by everyone even children and understanding the ideas actually broadens the grasp of the mind to understand more and more. Because we are human, we respond to and are influenced by the great stories and thoughts throughout time. That's almost the most importance function of education, to form the hearts and spirits of the young and almost every great culture has recognized this truth.... they all have legends, myths, fables, proverbs designed to pass on the heritage of wisdom. There's no such direct connection to the fact that the Amazon River is X miles long, for instance,and in fact we could be just as human without knowing that fact, though perhaps it's useful to be aware of in today's world. (But I don't know it, and if I needed to know I'd Google <G>) |
|
|
Are you saying that traditional CE doesn't put emphasis on memorizing random facts? I wonder why the proponents of CE have changed the emphasis. Do they think that the way they are proposing CE responds more to today's world? Is Dorothy Sayer's writing the cause of the change in CE?
Thanks for the conversation,
Natalia
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 8:26am | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
- that Catholic homeschooling should be Sacramental, and family-oriented, a matter of relationships and environment as well as conscious teaching and training. |
|
|
This might seem a dumb question but... what do you mean by Sacramental - based on the Sacraments or something else?
WJFR wrote:
| My present sixth grader is studying Latin and Christian Greek, but using short lessons. He's also doing Logic -- part way through Introductory Logic and just starting Traditional Logic. He is doing diagramming for English grammar. I think of those as the "discipline" or teaching subjects. Math also fits in there, and working on the catechism. |
|
|
My dd did Latina Christiana I last year and fininshed this year. Instead of proceeding on to LC II, I decided to emphasize Spanish. She did the Dandelions logic books because I didn't think she was ready for Introductiory Logic this year. I think she is ready for it next year even though is listed as 8th grade and up. What are you using for diagramming sentences and for working on the cathecism?
WJFR wrote:
I'd love to hear what you did, and what didn't work for you. Even though my oldest is a senior, I never feel like I *really* know what I'm doing. It seems to work out differently for each kid.
|
|
|
I have been thinking about this since I read your post yesterday. i think that my sense of "muddiness" is more a feeling than a fact. I became interested in incorporating CM methods and ideas not only because I thought it good for my children but because I thought it provided something I needed to grow on: flexibility, enjoyment of life, seeing my children as people and tailoring their education to each one. But maybe because it is contrary to my natural inclinations, it seems to me that everything that I tried to incorporate that is CMish is difficult to measure its success.
You mentioned that the area of language is where you tend to be more classical. For me is the opposite. In 5h grade my dd had done a pretty intensive grammar course (Rod and Staff 5) with lot of diagramming. After reading some articles about CM and RL, I decided that I wanted to stop for this year studying grammar and just do it. So I decided to require more narrations oral and once a week a written one. I decided to do copywork ( which I am doing using the copy from AO) and dictation (which I frequently forget). I wanted my dd to learn to communicate, to express herself. But then I found myself not knowing how to qualify her narrations: are they sufficiently deep? are the changing and becoming better? what am I looking for? It is difficult to qualify I think.
Another thing that makes me feel "muddy" ( unclear) about what we are doing and where we are going is this: My dd seems to have a need to be with the rest of the family. Since there are five years between my two kids (my third is just 3) it is difficult to do stuff together. But I thought that some of the unit studies/ lapbooks would be good. And they were. We did the reindeer plans and the rainforest and a snow unit. The problem is that they left me feeling that this learning that took place was standing alone and there was no peg in which to hang it.
Then there is the issue of her reading. At the beginning of the year she told me she was tired of historical fiction. So we agreed that we were going to alternate one historical fiction with some literature of her choosing. She likes to read and enjoys her reading but she only likes to read at night. Since sometimes she falls sleep or is too tired to read, finsihing a book takes her more time that I would like for her to take. As a result she hasn't read as much as I thought she would. And she hasn't read much classic literature. I am not sure what to do next year- do away with historical fiction and give her some classical literature to read? I think that historical fiction adds so much to our history which is really the center of our studies.
I have yet to incorporate nature study the CM way. And as you mentioned the study part is the first to go out in a pinch. We haven't done much art this year at all. We did some music- we study some of Beethoven and Mozart.
I think the main problem is the discrepancies between my ideas of what education was going to look like for my dd and reality. I thought she was going to read voratiously and widely. She was going to comunicate her thoughts about what she was reading through her narrations. And it hasn't been the case.
Thanks for listening and I hope you can make sense of what I said. i tend to ramble as any good latin would
Natalia
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 9:35am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hello! I've gotten behind on reading long, meaty posts. This morning, I used the "print" feature and I read this thread instead of the newspaper. I highlighted a few things as I went:
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. There is hand-holding available at the Sonlight boards and at the very active Sl-Catholic yahoogroup (their archives are worth their weight in gold).
Don't discount Mater Amabilis for lack of hand-holding. If you like the content and the structure, the authors of MA are very accessible, both through their yahoogroup and through personal email. I can't imagine you wouldn't have pelnty of support there.
I definitely agree with Willa--content and method are not a dichotomy. The Real Learning approach is to take beautiful content and apply CM and other methods (like unit study and notebooking) to that content. It can all work together.
It cracks me up when Willa refers to "Elizabeth's booklist" because Willa contributed at least as much as I did to it, particularly in the older grades. That booklist is online atReal Learning Booklist. Click on "Suggestions Towards a Curriculum."
I think Willa's point about education looking different for every child is a very important one. I also think we need to look carefully at what she has done in her home, despite extraordinarily difficult "real life" circumstances. She will graduate a child who has been accepted to Thomas Aquinas College.  Despite--or perhaps because of-- all the tweaking along the way, he has acquired an excellent education. Liam's education was a lot of things, but it was not a lockstep, carefully laid out 12-year plan that didn't deviate from the curriculum guide
We're really blessed to have the benefit and the reassurance of her wisdom.
__________________
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: April 22 2005 at 1:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Natalia and Elizabeth and everyone,
I am worrying that I sound like a know-it-all  I'm a firstborn and you know what they are like! If I sound like that, please discount the tone. I love this topic and I do get carried away sometimes
About memorizing, it won't take me long to get beyond my area of competence. I'm not a historian. But I have read in several contexts that until around the Enlightenment (c. late 1700's) there was not the emphasis on factual, material information that there is now. That came about from materialist theories of philosophy and the emphasis on the scientific method to the exclusion of more traditional ways of "apprehending" reality.
If you look at the Bible, you see that knowledge is taught by stories and exhortations, proverbs and poems. This paralleled the way the ancient Greeks and Romans approached learning. The primary "textbook" of the Greeks for many years was Homer's Iliad for example.
In the middle ages, mastery of Latin (and to some extent Greek and Hebrew) was important because that gave students access to the literature of the ancients and the Church.
So memory work WAS important but it was more a matter of memorizing paradigms (declensions and conjugations, etc)and vocabulary in the classical languages and also commiting to memory huge passages of Scripture and literature. I found this when reading the Ratio Studiorum of the Jesuits from 1599 (the Ignatian method from this document is what Kolbe bases its educational philosophy upon).
To me, this is a very sensible use of the faculty for memorization -- it's directly FOR something... either facility in a language or internalizing worthy and valuable thoughts and language. And in fact, much of what Dorothy Sayers advocates of memorization IS along this line. CM of course also uses memory work in this line -- languages and worthy literature.
But mere "facts" are something different. Dorothy Sayers does recommend hanging some "facts" onto images and concrete things.... for example, learning the names for natural things, attaching dates onto historical pictures. Again not dissimilar from what CM advocates in using century books, and nature notebooks. The idea is to have pegs for further knowledge, I believe, and an organizing system.
She also recommends chants as satisfying in themselves especially for younger kids -- chanting declensions, and so on. The medievals did make use of chants and what they called "memory rooms" where a mental "locus" or place could recall a fact. But usually the facts were things that were directly useful, like memorizing syllogism patterns in logic, things like that. CM doesn't really seem to do this much, so that is a difference.
I'm sorry to go on and on. What I see happening around the time of the Enlightenment is an unprecedented emphasis on "filling the bucket" rather than teaching a child how to think and acquire wisdom. This seemed to have huge repercussions on how we think of education. Rousseau's ideas of "natural development" of the person was a sort of reaction to the obvious inadequacy of the "fill the bucket, pour in information" model.
Now this next part is sort of theoretical. I think that many modern classical education homeschoolers are Protestants of the Reformed variety and believe in the corrupt nature of humans after the fall... not just that we are weakened by original sin, but that we are "totally depraved". So they tend to be comfortable with a sort of "outside to inside" model of education which imposes learning and morality from outside and sort of molds the child. That's one reason I think they are comfortable with lots of memory work that is sort of abstract and divorced from concrete, perceivable reality. The other reason is the lack of sacramentalism in Reformed Protestantism, but that's another topic....
The Catholic view of education is somewhat different and more reciprocal. The teacher and student have a relationship. The ultimate responsibility and privilege of the student is to learn. But the teacher can help through the use of environment, training, and imparting knowledge. And of course, the doctrine that parents are foundationally responsible for and competent for the education of their children really affects the Catholic idea of education and changes it from the institutional mode to an organic, relationship-oriented mode. Schools are supposed to build on and work with what Catholic parents have already begun and continue to do -- this is especially applicable to formal Catholic schooling here, but of course is true of homeschooling in that when we homeschool, we build on and continue what we started as "merely" parents
__________________
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 22 2005 at 1:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth said:
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 ....
My probblem is how much is too much or too little content? How much should we expect to cover in a month? Should we be reading separate fiction books for history and literature or combine them? Should poetry be separate? What about science and religion? Catechism and saint stories and bible reading. As well as biographies of scientists and natural history books. Add on memorizing and decisions on what to memorize and then I'm completely overwhelmed. How much? I never know how to weight my day. And end up feeling in over my head. And by the end of the year not sure if we did too much or too little. I was hoping by the end of our second year to be feeling more comfortable instead I'm still feeling uncertain. I guess I'm looking for a guideline.
I realize this jumps from the theoretical concept to the practical, but theoretical only works if I can picture it in my home.
Willa don't feel like you've sounded showy or anything like that. You are a blessing to us here and your joy for the subject was obviously placed there by God.
__________________
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 22 2005 at 1:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
About sacramental education:
Yes, I do think the upper case Sacramental -- a lively Sacramental and liturgical life is important. Elizabeth put it in her Real Learning formula as the "Real Presence" which is of course at the very heart of our Faith life. But I was also talking about something else which is particularly important to me as a convert from Protestantism. I'm speaking as such, not as a theologian, of course....
As a Protestant, I was influenced by a tendency to distrust nature and to separate it from things of the spirit. We don't have statues or crucifixes at least in my denominational tradition, and we see even Baptism as a ratification of our consent to believe in Jesus as Savior, rather than as Catholics know it, as a Sacrament which effects what it signifies-- a divine intervention using nature as the means of supernatural grace. Our Protestant version of communion was symbolic, a memorial meal and only that. I could write a LOT just trying to communicate the implications.
As a Catholic (or Orthodox or more sacramentally ordered Protestant, eg an Anglican) -- reality is very different. Physical reality becomes an entry point into a deeper perception. Especially and explicitly so in the seven Sacraments, but also in a natural sense. Jesus used parables of real natural things to express spiritual truths -- and an event or natural object prefigures or typifies a truth in the supernatural order, for example David is sort of a "type" of Jesus and so is Joseph. We as Catholics use sacramentals, holy things, to remind us of spiritual things. We don't think of spiritual things as something ethereal and less "real" than material things, but as something MORE real even though we can't perceive it with our physical senses.
There is a resonance in this that I can hardly express. When I go to Adoration, I behold what appears to my senses as a piece of bread but in reality is the very Presence of our Lord. Small things can be immense.... a Little things done with great love, as St Therese perceived, are no longer little. Our family, our domestic church, is a microcosm and "type" of the church as a whole.
I think that Protestants don't have this way of looking at reality, at least not completely, and it affects how they teach. So I see in TWTM a lot that is good but also a lot that is sort of mechanical..... as if the child that knows X amount of history and science data will be by that reason "educated". Not so have Catholics (or the ancients, the Greeks and Romans themselves) understood education. Education is to them the forming of a unique human vocation, a calling from God to be a saint. Technical competence and a data bank of facts at one's disposal is meaningless and even harmful if it is not tied to holiness. I don't think TWTM takes quite enough account of this basic reality. Again, you can modify it and use a lot of the "system" as long as the system is the tool not the master of a Catholic education in the full sense.
I hope it is clear that I am not trying to "knock" Protestant Christianity which has retained many Catholic truths by virtue of being Biblical and by virtue no doubt also of Christian baptism---just explain how I think the Catholic understanding of matter and spirit as united in our human nature and how God has chosen to work with us affects how kids learn and how we teach.
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. I've noticed this in my family, that too many varied activities or too much academic stuff covered leads to superficiality and a kind of scattering or "dissipation". When I see this happening there is a need to get back to the core, the First Principles of our homeschooling.
I think that this is incidentally what helped my oldest to succeed academically in spite of disastrous life circumstances through his high school years. We were involved with two very ill children, his two littlest brothers -- away at the hospital for many months, dealing with life and death. Well, he missed out on many extras but this way of life did force us to concentrate our minds and prioritize. Number One, he had to make a commitment to take his work seriously and work independently, because I often couldn't help him much. Number Two, we had to focus on the priorities and keep them firmly in mind. His success helped me to see that some things that I thought were essential were NOT essential. Of course, I still regret that we didn't get to some of the really neat extras and some of them are great, but they just AREN'T first priority.
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." I don't have a recipe for those last two -- those are things that have to be committed to by the individual child, but I think that remembering how important they are, and making home life conducive to the development of those things, and PRAYING, certainly have a big impact.
Well, I guess I've almost written a book and if I don't want to feel like the ultimate hypocrite, I'd better go and help my kids with their education
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
~Rachel~
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 677
|
| Posted: April 22 2005 at 2:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa,
I for one would love to see you write a book . Your posts are informative, not because you are very good at expressing yourself (which you are) but also because the benefits of your experiences really help us to see the truths.
We know that your son managed to get into college, even though his life was in uproar much of his education (or maybe because of that?), and your thoughtful insights help those of us just starting out on the path to see where the path leads and the possible pitfalls ahead.
I have truly enjoyed reading all the posts on this thread... especially since I long ago concluded that I was going to mic CM and CE...
THANK YOU!
__________________
~Rachel~
Wife to William
Mum to James 13, Lenore 8
Lighting a Fire
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Living Learning
Topic: Real Learning, CM, and Classical ed.
