| Author | |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2010 at 1:52pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
[Note: As per Willa's reminder, I've edited some posts to better reflect that we're talking about ideas, not persons.]
Kim at Starry Sky Ranch had some interesting comments regarding Montessori, Plato, and Aristotle, in response to an article by Martin Cothran of Memoria Press. This got me thinking (always dangerous!  ).
For those who have some familiarity with both Montessori and traditional classical education, do you think these methods are in conflict with one another? Or do you think it's possible to support them both, not just in practice (i.e., "whatever works for your family"), but on a philosophical level?
At least one classical-style educator takes the former position -- saying since human nature is constant, there can only be one proper form of education, which is the same throughout history. Using Plato's imagery of the darkened cave, he says that education requires that the child first be drawn out of his reliance on the senses, into the light of reason.
Montessorians would argue that their founder's work did, in fact, reveal and explore some unrecognized aspects of the nature of the human person, especially the child. One could say that she specialized in the "impossible." Though she started out believing otherwise, she found that the very young child has an inner love for order and work, and is capable of forming deep and loving relationships with God and his neighbor, even before his reason and will are developed.
Dr. Montessori was trained in both engineering and medicine, and was very much inclined toward research -- but because of her gender, she was assigned the job of starting a preschool from scratch, to care for the children of poor working families in the slums of Rome. This put her in the then-unique position of viewing the children simultaneously through the eyes of a scientist, a teacher, and a mother ("Mammolina"). Her results were remarkable, to say the least, and they've been replicated countless times all over the world, in schools that follow her method (which, sadly, doesn't include all the schools that bear her name, for historical reasons that have been discussed on this board). Of course, many foolish things have been done over the years in the name of science, but her work seems like an exemplary use of the discipline, in that it set out to meet a true practical need, and, in doing so, discovered principles that could help everyone.
Despite its long history of use with older children and adults, traditional classical education seems quite limited in what it can offer to little ones. I don't think Aristotle had a whole lot to say about educating preschoolers, and as for Plato's views on child-rearing, I'd rather not go there. In today's "classical curricula," the provisions for young children seem more or less tacked on as an afterthought, and don't appear to have a solidly established track record. This is what got me looking into Montessori in the first place; it seemed as if there must be a better way.
All that I've said about very young children also applies to those with developmental delays or serious learning disabilities (aka "dunces," in the former vocabulary  ).
I wonder how St. Joseph of Cupertino would have done at Montessori? I can just picture him levitating over the red rods...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Jan 14 2010 at 7:02pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
For those who have some familiarity with both Montessori and traditional classical education, do you think these methods are in conflict with one another? Or do you think it's possible to support them both, not just in practice (i.e., "whatever works for your family"), but on a philosophical level?
The director of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy takes the former position. He says that since human nature is constant, there can only be one proper form of education, which is the same throughout history. Using Plato's imagery of the darkened cave, he says that education requires that the child first be drawn out of his reliance on the senses, into the light of reason. |
|
|
Hi Eleanor,
Somehow I missed this topic on my "Active" thread. You raise some VERY interesting questions. I hardly knew what part of your post to quote 
Have you ever read Aristotle's Metaphysics?
here. It seems very relevant to this.
Quote:
"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses.... The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.
"By nature animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from sensation memory is produced in some of them, though not in others....
"The animals other than man live by appearances and memories, and have but little of connected experience; but the human race lives also by art and reasonings. Now from memory experience is produced in men; for the several memories of the same thing produce finally the capacity for a single experience. And experience seems pretty much like science and art, but really science and art come to men through experience... Now art arises when from many notions gained by experience one universal judgement about a class of objects is produced....
"With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. ...
If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) ....
"Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything-e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot. |
|
|
So what is he saying here?
1. All men desire to know, and this is why they take such delight in the operation of their senses. Men share this sensory nature with other animals, but because they are human, the knowledge that comes from the senses can reach beyond the senses to "universals".
2. Sensation causes memory -- memory causes experience -- and with experience, you have a chance to have art and then wisdom -- knowing WHY, going back to first causes.
3. Where "art" (being able to do things) is concerned, a person who can do something but does not know the reasons is more capable than a person who knows the reasons theoretically but hasn't learned how to do the thing. (He uses the example of medicine and healing).
4. But better than both of these separately is both together-- Knowing how to do something AND knowing the causes.
As to what that has to do with Montessori and classical education---
I liked the CLAA article, but I think it is emphasizing one side of the question. Certainly, Aristotle says wisdom is something beyond mere sensory experience... and undoubtedly education should point beyond the sensory world. But this is not something that Montessori would deny, or so I would think. The idea behind her concrete manipulatives, the way I understand it, is to provide carefully planned concrete sensations that will add up to memory and experience and ultimately real knowledge -- abstracting from the concrete particulars to the universal concept.
Montessori was a scientist, and I think her mode of education is quite empirically based. I am no Montessori expert, so I don't know all the details of how it plays out in the later grades. But I imagine she aimed for her materials to teach both the practical knowledge of "how to" AND the process necessary to mentally manipulate concepts.
Aquinas also writes about the way knowledge is derived from sensation --
here. He lays out the difference Greek schools of thought on how we come to know, and then aligns his own position with Aristotle's.
Democritus, he writes, thought that "all knowledge is caused by images issuing from the bodies we think of and entering into our souls" -- so he thought that we sort of passively receive "information" and then this adds up to knowledge. Certainly you see this in many modern curriculums.
Plato, he says, thought that intellect was distinct from the senses, so our experiences were sort of reminders of what we already know in pure form.
Aristotle held a middle position. Intellect and sense are not the same thing, as Plato said. It's true, as Democritus said, that we receive information from "outside" ourselves by way of our senses and ONLY from that way. But the intellect's operation is not based on our senses. It "abstracts" from the particular and forms concepts.
I think generally most Catholic philosophies hold that the "remote" senses (hearing and vision) are more intellectual than the "proximate" ones like tasting, smelling and touching. So perhaps when Aristotle and Aquinas are talking about "sensation" they are talking about learning by seeing and hearing and practicing.
For very small children, however, tactile sensation is much more important than it is for older children, as you can see just from watching a baby or toddler, and for a delayed child (or one with sensory integration difficulties) it may, again, be much more crucial to have plenty of tactile stimulus.
St Jerome wrote to a mother giving advice on teaching her small daughter here -- a quote
Quote:
Get for her a set of letters made of boxwood or of ivory and called each by its proper name. Let her play with these, so that even her play may teach her something.
And not only make her grasp the right order of the letters and see that she forms their names into a rhyme, but constantly disarrange their order and put the last letters in the middle and the middle ones at the beginning that she may know them all by sight as well as by sound.
Moreover, so soon as she begins to use the style upon the wax, and her hand is still faltering, either guide her soft fingers by laying your hand upon hers, or else have simple copies cut upon a tablet; so that her efforts confined within these limits may keep to the lines traced out for her and not stray outside of these.
...
Above all you must take care not to make her lessons distasteful to her lest a dislike for them conceived in childhood may continue into her maturer years. |
|
|
This seems to be very practical sensory-oriented advice quite compatible with Montessori.
This is a very close echo to what Quintilian also said about teaching very small children (under 7)
Hope some of this helps. It is easy for me to get carried away and go on and on 
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Jan 15 2010 at 5:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Willa; it's great to hear from you.
Willa wrote:
Have you ever read Aristotle's Metaphysics?
here. It seems very relevant to this. |
|
|
I haven't studied it in depth, though I've learned a bit about it over the years. As I understand it, someone who takes the "classical only" approach would reject this comparison, since Montessori appears to be based on modern thinking -- i.e., developed through the scientific method & concerned with practical goals, rather than developed through reasoning from first principles & oriented toward the spiritual life. But I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the true Montessori approach is based on direct observation of the child as he is (without an agenda to mold him to some utilitarian result), and that it's also very much in harmony with our spiritual nature.
The Montessori elementary program is very interesting, but it has aspects that some consider a bit kooky. This is because she wanted the children to have the "big picture," but at the time the program was created, she was teaching non-Catholic children in India. In order that the method might be usable for all children, she came up with some workarounds to the standard presentation of God's creation and man's role in it. I've never seen a Catholic Montessori elementary program in action, so I'm not sure how successful people have been in translating it back into our theological language.
I have to go attend to things... like you, I could go on and on...  but will have to come back to the rest of your post later. Thanks again for the interesting discussion.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Marcia
Forum Pro
Joined: Aug 20 2007
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 437
|
| Posted: Jan 16 2010 at 5:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've been very impressed with the teachers that I met from queen of angels montessori catholic school
I personally have only been in the building during the summer...so haven't seen the school in action. But the principal and the teachers really had their stuff together regarding the Catholic Faith and Montessori. Very impressive.
__________________
Marcia
Mom to six and wife to one
Homeschooling 10th, 7th, 5th, 2nd, PreK and a toddler in tow.
I wonder why
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 6:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
| For what it's worth, the CLAA director has rejected this comparison, saying that Montessori is based on modern thinking (concerned with practical goals, rather than oriented toward the spiritual life), and that Aristotle and the other great philosophers wouldn't have had any respect for her method. But I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the true Montessori approach is based on direct observation of the child (rather than a plan to mold them to some utilitarian result), and that it is also profoundly spiritual. |
|
|
Hmm, I would want to know more about what this actually comes down to. Granted, most Montessori schools are secular, and a given exercise (say, the moveable alphabet or pouring rice) is not directly concerned with the spiritual life.
From what I understand, though, the Montessori exercises are meant to train the senses and beyond that, to form intellectual and moral habits. So there is a wider object than simply knowing the alphabet or knowing how to pour. Is this contradictory to the spiritual life? In the Republic, Socrates is talking about not becoming enslaved to bodily appetites, to a materialistic worldview -- that is what chains you to the ground and keeps you from seeing anything beyond shadows.
Cardinal Newman says that the liberal arts aren't per se directed towards the devout life. Certainly they are compatible, but they are by no means identical. Judge by all the illiterate or even simple-minded saints and all the very highly educated scoundrels. That's probably your point about Joseph Cupertino.
In the Republic, Socrates recommends play for children. They are to be educated with "music" (meaning stories and speeches and poems, close to what we would call literature today) and with "gymnastics" (to train their bodies to be subject to their reason and will). Later on they would learn geometry and dialectic -- the art of reasoning together to discover the good. Or so I understand it -- I am not an expert! Logic and "music" were playful, sort of like "games" but not in the frivolous sense -- joyful and serious too.
I guess all educators post-Plato up to say, Enlightenment times would agree that:
1. Education is directed beyond itself to the eternal things.
2. Though the eternal things -- the non-material things -- are the most knowable in themselves, they are the least knowable to humans because of our material nature. Everything, to us, is mediated through the senses and our reasoning is discursive, step by step, not immediate and immaterial, like the way angels know things.
3. So education has to begin through the senses and proceed from the known to the unknown.
I think the details HOW (if educators agree on the first step, that education is important for intellectual development and points beyond material things) would fall somewhere in between there. And the distinctions would be subtle and part of it would be prudential -- is this child gifted towards scholarliness or towards craftmanship? What opportunities are reasonably available to him? etc.
(Part of the difficulty of being a homeschooler -- having so many choices  )
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LeeAnn
Forum Pro
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Jan 18 2010 at 8:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor, I think you're setting up a false comparison here. Remember, CLAA is meant to be rigorous intellectual training for young persons pursuing vocations to religious life. I don't think Mr. Michael has claimed anywhere that his method of education is best for ALL students--in fact, he specifically says it is not.
So fae as I know, Montessori education is not designed to prepare boys for seminary or girls for religious life. Catholic Montessori--like Catechesis of the Good Shepherd, the only type of Catholic Montessori program I'm familiar with--seems to be a wonderful way to teach young children about the faith but it isn't meant to be the same thing as a classical education.
Not everyone needs or desires a classical education. There was a particular thread on the CLAA discussion boards where he discouraged a mom from making her son pursue classical education because he showed a very strong mechanical talent (the kind of kid who takes apart and fixes things easily).
So I think it's fair to say that Mr. Michael undoubtedly believes traditional classical eduation is superior. But I don't see why this must make classial ed in conflict with other methods of education, except those that claim to achieve the same results.
When his Beatitudes School is up and running I guess then we'll get to see what his idea of a classical style education for the general student will be.
__________________
my four children are 17, 15, 11 & 8 - all now attend public school - we read many 4Real recommended books at home
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 3:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi LeeAnn
The idea of a "conflict with other methods of education" didn't originate with me. I came across it in the CLAA's Praeceptor course, where it says on page 1 that there's only one right way to educate human beings (and starting on page 2, we're gonna learn what it is! ).
LeeAnn wrote:
| So fae as I know, Montessori education is not designed to prepare boys for seminary or girls for religious life. |
|
|
I'm not sure if you mean "prepare" in a spiritual way, or in an academic way. If it's spiritual preparation, then I would disagree. All Catholic schools have the mission of preparing children to serve God's kingdom in whatever way He calls them -- and thus, of promoting priestly and religious vocations. Many don't do a good job of this, but I believe that this is largely due to factors other than their educational philosophy. One might even say that Montessori schools have some advantages in fostering vocations, due to their emphasis on inner motivation, quiet, and cooperation (in contrast to the extrinsic rewards, noise, and competition that seem to be part of of historic classical education). As Willa suggests, there's a great deal of order and discipline happening in a traditionally run Montessori classroom or home environment, and it contributes to a very contemplative, almost monastic atmosphere (at times... these are children, after all ).
If you're referring to academic preparation, I think it gets a little confusing when we try to generalize about different groups under the single heading of "vocations." Religious clergy, secular (diocesan) clergy, various monks and brothers, sisters in active orders, and cloistered nuns all live very different lives, and not all of them need to be great intellectuals. I'm sure there are many children who would find a full traditional classical workload too difficult, but are nonetheless called to a vocation in a religious community. After all, St. Therese had a fairly basic education with no Latin whatsoever, but she became a Doctor of the Church. And St. John Vianney, patron saint of priests, struggled with advanced Latin and had to have some special accommodations to get through his exams. Through them, God has shown us that vocations are about how much we are willing to love and sacrifice for Him, more than about how much we know.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 6:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
The specific information on Mr Michael's position about Montessori, and whether or not a rigorous classical education is appropriate for everyone, and what the reasonable alternatives might be if it is not, doesn't seem to be available to the general public. So we ought to avoid getting into the details of his thinking on that on this forum. Another difficulty is that holding a discussion on the specifics of what Mr Michael said in private is potentially unfair to Mr Michael since it holds his positions up for scrutiny without giving him a chance to respond.
For these reasons we should move away from discussion of the details of a particular (living) person's thinking, and towards the general philosophical question.
Quote:
| For those who have some familiarity with both Montessori and traditional classical education, do you think these methods are in conflict with one another? Or do you think it's possible to support them both, not just in practice (i.e., "whatever works for your family"), but on a philosophical level? |
|
|
The general questions of whether classical education is meant for everyone or not, if it is the only "true" one or not, whether it is "superior" or not, or specifically targeted towards religious vocations or not, are also interesting and appropriate to discuss (though very big questions of course and difficult to resolve!), but we should get beyond the statements per se and who said them to WHY they might be true or not.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 9:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Sorry if I posted something out of line, Willa. I've tried to keep my references limited to the first Praeceptor lesson (which is publicly available ), and the two-part article on the failings of modern systems of education (ditto, here and here). Even if we set aside any other discussion, it doesn't seem possible to read these articles in a way that allows for Montessori education as an "alternative."
"We will see that modern educational philosophies are not alternatives to the ancient system but errors leading men away from sound philosophy and ultimately, true happiness."
So it seems to me that either
a) Montessori is actually following the same philosophy as the ancient system of learning (and is not, in fact, "rooted in the scientific method," which is said in the above articles to be the great error of modern systems), or
b) something in these articles is erroneous, or
c) Montessori is "leading men away from sound philosophy and, ultimately, true happiness."
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LeeAnn
Forum Pro
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 10:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was only referring to academic preparation.
And my last word on CLAA's specific purpose (as I understand it): it is to prepare men & women for religious vocations that do require rigorous intellectual training--such as the founding of schools, the priesthood or missionary work.
God uses people educated by any number of methods of education or even those lacking all education to accomplish His Will.
The more general question of whether classical education is meant for everyone I think is easily answered with a "no." Why? Not everyone is called to the same purpose, not everyone has the same level of ability, not everyone has access to it.
However you could ask: Is classical education meant for everyone who aspires to the active, mission-based religious life? I think to that I would answer "yes"--I know many priests who would probably have benefitted from a more rigorous logic-based education. Not that their spiritual preparation was entirely deficient or that they don't do good works! But how many of the problems of the past forty or fifty years have been compounded because of poor seminary education? The same could be said for sisters who teach in Catholic schools. Some have received superior educations, others have not.
Another interesting question might be what are we, as Catholic homeschooling parents, preparing our children for and does that goal require a classical education? I have some children for whom that answer *might* be yes and some for whom that answer likely is no. Not that they might not all respond to the call to religious life, but I don't see the desire or aptitude for academic pursuits in some that I see in others.
I think St. Therese is a good example of someone who is not classically educated but still was used by God to teach all of us very profound truths.
__________________
my four children are 17, 15, 11 & 8 - all now attend public school - we read many 4Real recommended books at home
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CatholicMommy
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2007
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 10:40am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Marcia wrote:
I've been very impressed with the teachers that I met from queen of angels montessori catholic school
I personally have only been in the building during the summer...so haven't seen the school in action. But the principal and the teachers really had their stuff together regarding the Catholic Faith and Montessori. Very impressive. |
|
|
I worked there (subbing for a teacher on maternity leave). It is all that is purports to be While the upper level teachers pull in some things that are not necessarily Montessori (and most Montessori trainers would highly disagree with), they are not necessarily incompatible with Montessori either.
__________________
Garden of Francis
HS Elementary Montessori Training
Montessori Nuggets
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 10:51am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I would love to hear more about what they're doing at QAMS -- maybe in another thread?
Another thing I mentioned before, which has kind of fallen by the wayside in the current discussion, is that Montessori originally developed her method for very young children -- i.e., before the "age of reason" -- whereas classical educators have typically taught much older students, starting somewhere between ages 8 and 12. So my questions aren't just related to the fact that some people have more natural aptitude than others. I'm also thinking about different methods (possibly) being more appropriate for different stages of life.
And if we take that possibility seriously... then given what Our Lord said about little children and the Kingdom of Heaven... perhaps a method that's better suited to the nature of the young child, is one that also has many helpful insights for all levels of Christian education?
Just thinking out loud here. My own little children are calling... back later.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 11:14am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
| Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? |
|
|
LOL -- thanks for the Praeceptor link. I should have asked if it was public. I've poked around on the site but obviously missed bits.
I admit I am curious about something and have been for quite a long time, even before CLAA.
Either classical education is the only true form of education---ie, every other type of education is erroneous, or it is not. That is, there are other types of worthwhile education that aren't classical.
If it IS the only true form of education, doesn't that mean that everyone should partake? We are all equal in human dignity and we are all called to an eternal destiny, even though we are not equal in gifts. We would all need a classical liberal arts education to help us look beyond.
If it ISN'T the only true form, then that would mean that there are other good ways to educate.
LeeAnn made the point that traditional classical education is targeted towards those who may be suited for a distinguished religious vocation. So that would imply that classical education is targeted towards a subset of Church members as a whole.
So for the rest of the population, that wouldn't necessarily exclude other forms of education. Montessori wouldn't be a problem simply because it is not classical. If it was a problem, it would be a problem for some other reason.
What would that reason be? I can't quite buy that it is because it trains the senses. Training does not mean an over-emphasis in and of itself. Mr Michael rightly remarks that we live in a materialist society that is over-focused on tangible things. But the problem with our over-focus isn't that we are paying proper attention to them but that we are paying disproportionate attention to them. Or so it would seem. Plato said that too much attention to food, drink, pleasure in general, intellectual pride or desire for fame or power -- those things are dangerous because they are a distraction. Christian thinking has agreed and assigned a cause to our problem -- original sin.
But Plato's remedy for obsession was discipline -- training the body so it would be a better servant in aid of the higher things.
Perhaps it is a matter of priorities -- less time available for other things -- verbal catechesis, literature, speaking and listening?
But even so, if someone was mechanically minded, say, and classical education is meant for the intellectually minded, then surely a mechanical training would not be erroneous and modern?
Something I am not quite getting there, and I'd love thoughts on that.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LeeAnn
Forum Pro
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 11:15am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think Montessori is most effective for the age group for which it was developed.
I think Our Lord called us to be like little children in humility and trust. I don't see what that has to do with how a person is educated, other than small children generally learn by example and so we also should follow the examples of the saints and other holy men and women that have gone before us in lives of sanctity, faith and good works.
__________________
my four children are 17, 15, 11 & 8 - all now attend public school - we read many 4Real recommended books at home
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 11:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
| And if we take that possibility seriously... then given what Our Lord said about little children and the Kingdom of Heaven... perhaps a method that's better suited to the nature of the young child, is one that also has many helpful insights for all levels of Christian education? |
|
|
Eleanor, I was crossposting with you just now.
I'd love to hear more about the particular insights that might apply to all levels, if you get time. I wanted to ask: in your OP were you asking about using Montessori in the early years and phasing into classical education as the child reached school age? To me, Montessori doesn't seem strictly academic in the younger years -- it's "pre-academic" and so a matter of getting accustomed to practicing good habits and using one's motor and observation skills well. It's true what you said that Ignatian classical education didn't properly start till the child was older.
ST Jerome wrote about the teaching of small children:
Quote:
Thus must a soul be educated which is to be a temple of God. It must learn to hear nothing and to say nothing but what belongs to the fear of God. It must have no understanding of unclean words, and no knowledge of the world's songs. Its tongue must be steeped while still tender in the sweetness of the psalms.....
Things must not be despised as of small account in the absence of which great results cannot be achieved. The very rudiments and first beginnings of knowledge sound differently in the mouth of an educated man and of an uneducated. Accordingly you must see that the child is not led away by the silly coaxing of women to form a habit of shortening long words or of decking herself with gold and purple. Of these habits one will spoil her conversation and the other her character. She must not therefore learn as a child what afterwards she will have to unlearn. |
|
|
One distinctive of Montessori is that she, too, took early learning seriously and thought of early childhood as an important time to develop proper habits and focus. But of course, she generally worked with working class children, whereas Jerome was talking about the daughter of a noblewoman, who was preparing to enter the religious life.
In a way we nowadays aren't really in the leisured nobility class -- most of us have to expect to work with our hands some way and at some time.
__________________
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: Jan 19 2010 at 11:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's a Schematic Outline of Ignatian Education from the early days (early 16th century). It comes from a document at the NAPCIS site, which is very fun to browse through.
Boys entered the Ignatian school at about age 10, according to this. Before that, children went to elementary schools and learned basically how to converse, read, and write in Latin (they didn't instruct in the mother tongue back then since all the academic books and discourses were in Latin).
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LeeAnn
Forum Pro
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 11:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa wrote:
| If it IS the only true form of education, doesn't that mean that everyone should partake? We are all equal in human dignity and we are all called to an eternal destiny, even though we are not equal in gifts. We would all need a classical liberal arts education to help us look beyond. |
|
|
I think the forthcoming Beatitudes School will be Mr. Michael's answer to this. It is intended to be a free online school for the poor to be classically educated in method but with less coursework.
Willa wrote:
| LeeAnn made the point that traditional classical education is targeted towards those who may be suited for a distinguished religious vocation. So that would imply that classical education is targeted towards a subset of Church members as a whole. |
|
|
I think the question we have to ask, as Catholic parents, is whether or not our goal is to raise sons and daughters for the Church? WM asks the same (somewhere!) in his website. Do we seriously seek to encourage our sons to become priests or religious brothers? Do we strongly prefer our daughters to become religious sisters? If so, then we are probably best off trying to procure a classical education for our children--they can of course always learn these things later in life!--but getting on that path from the beginning certainly makes pursuing a religious vocation sooner easier.
WM is of the school of thought that the religious life is the preferred or more sure path to holiness (as opposed to the more recent idea that religious life, married life or single/consecrated secular life are equal paths to holiness). I know that not everyone agrees with that (let's not debate that here) but it is an idea with a long history in the Church and important to understand where he is coming from.
Willa wrote:
So for the rest of the population, that wouldn't necessarily exclude other forms of education.
...
But even so, if someone was mechanically minded, say, and classical education is meant for the intellectually minded, then surely a mechanical training would not be erroneous and modern? |
|
|
Maybe there is something to the now-taboo idea of station in life? That is, the type of education we should pursue for our children has some relation to our time, talent and treasure? Classical education is for those who have the leisure (time) to pursue it--for those who don't have to work every moment to provide food and clothing for the family. Talent is probably individual and why we see examples of those who are poor being provided with opportunities to rise above their "class." Treasure: well, that is obvious. In past days only those who could pay were able to go to school and recieve a classical education.
To some extent, homeschooling subverts this as parents take education into their own hands. But even within the homeschooling community there is probably a correlation between wealth and having the leisure time to school your own children. You either must have money or a LOT of dedication. Very few families with two working parents teach their children at home, after all.
This past Sunday, our parochial vicar preached on gifts both spiritual and physical (talents) being given to us to benefit the community. If we are blessed to have all three gifts of time, talent and the treasure to pursue the classical education, then good. If not, then other means of education would seem to be appropriate. There are always exceptions. (Mr. Michael himself was the lone academic among a family of construction/mechanical-minded siblings, according to another post.)
I don't know enough about Montessori philosophy to really answer in depth about what its ultimate flaws might be. But again, I'd say it is best applied where it was originally intended.
edited to correct error: was "sports-minded" should be "construction/mechanical-minded"
__________________
my four children are 17, 15, 11 & 8 - all now attend public school - we read many 4Real recommended books at home
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 11:55am | IP Logged
|
|
|
LeeAnn wrote:
| However you could ask: Is classical education meant for everyone who aspires to the active, mission-based religious life? I think to that I would answer "yes"--I know many priests who would probably have benefitted from a more rigorous logic-based education. |
|
|
I too wish there were more rigorously educated religious in the world. St Ignatius got involved in education because he saw the need for an intellectually distinguished group of priests who were also solidly formed spiritually -- so they could take on modern errors. This was post-Reformation, and it seems just as much of a need today -- maybe even more.
 
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 2:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for the quotations and links. (We're supposed to be moving house... how am I going to get my packing done?!?  )
I agree completely about the need for rigorously educated clergy, and I certainly wouldn't say that Montessori (at least, as it currently exists) should "replace" classical education. It's my belief that both methods have great strengths (and a surprising amount of common ground), and that they can be combined to some degree.
One obvious way to do this would be use Montessori up to age 6, then start classical education at age 7 -- but I think we could also go much farther with this, as I suggested to Willa. I can't get into a big discussion of this right now, much as I'd love to... but it would certainly be a large and long-term challenge that would require the collaboration of people with an in-depth knowledge of, and commitment to, both methods of education. In the recent past, various individuals have tried to come up with combinations of Montessori and classical education(e.g. there was a book a few years back called Natural Structure), but it's never really taken off, and I think it's because the results have inadvertently been lacking in some of the qualities that are essential to each method.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that "education," in the classical sense, isn't the same thing as "job training." Education is aimed at developing the intellect with a view to our eternal goal (to know, love, and serve God), while training is meant to teach skills that we need for practical purposes. This is why so many great Christian thinkers have supported equal education for women. It's not because we're all called to start Catholic women's colleges, or very intellectual religious orders . It's because a liberal education elevates us above the mundane, and helps us to know and live the truth.
Dewey was very mixed up about this, but I'm inclined to think that Montessori was on the right track. As Willa suggests, she used the practical life exercises as a way to develop the senses and the will, as a stepping stone to higher types of learning. They weren't meant as preparation for a job as a carpenter, or a maid, or a window cleaner. Not that those aren't worthwhile jobs, but as I understand it, the training that's required for them wouldn't be considered "education" in the classical sense.
Anyway... after re-reading various articles, and trying to dredge up all the Montessori reading that's in the back of my mind, I'm thinking that different understandings of the role of science might be a large part of the apparent conflict between these two systems.
I'll have to come back to this later, but I'd like to propose "Catholic teaching on science, and its role in education" as yet another possible topic for discussion.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LeeAnn
Forum Pro
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Jan 19 2010 at 2:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
Speaking of which, regarding students' different abilities, here's an article on learning disorders that's posted at the main CLAA site. It doesn't appear to support the idea that the classical method is only supposed to be "the best" in the case of some especially capable students, and that other methods of education could be better for children with special needs or intellectual limitations. Instead, his interpretation seems to be that we should go back to the classical method as a universal thing, and simply accept that God has different plans for each of us. E.g., if a child struggles with dyslexia, then rather than look for a different way of teaching, maybe we should conclude that he just wasn't meant to learn to read.
Hmm. Not sure I agree with that ... of course there's some truth in the fact that we all have different gifts, but I think we have to be careful not to take it too far, and "shut people out" at an early age. |
|
|
I think you are completely misunderstanding the point of the article.
The point is not that children with dyslexia should just give up on academics and forget about an education. Not at all.
He is challenging the enforced homogenity of the public schooling system and the fact that natural variations in children's progress and abilities are being labeled now as "disabilities."
He is saying some children need more time, fewer subjects and less intervention than the public school system allows for.
He is challenging the idea that these various newly labelled disabilities truly exist at all in the way that physical handicaps do (the example given is blindness). Please re-read the article.
__________________
my four children are 17, 15, 11 & 8 - all now attend public school - we read many 4Real recommended books at home
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Philosophy of Education
Topic: Montessori & traditional classical ed
