Ella Frances Lynch

[ElizaG]

I didn't really follow all of what you were saying there, but I do wish you the best with RB.   :001_smile:   

 

Would anyone be interested in discussing EFL's advice on remediation?   (If not... I'll talk about it anyway.   :D  )

 

The main passages that come to mind are the description of her work with the one-room schoolhouse full of "difficult" children, and then chapter XII of Educating the Child at Home.  But there are other parts that also seem relevant.   Some of them have to do with her view of child development, which isn't spelled out as explicitly as Montessori's or Sayers', but seems deeply held nonetheless. 

 

For instance, in her criticism of the public schools of her day, she mentions:

 

"Subjects taught at the wrong time -- fed on definitions and mathematics during the most imaginative early years, then later on with poetry just when the reasoning powers manifest themselves and demand different food."

 

I think this is one place where my expectations have been wrong.  I tried to teach poetry to my upper elementary children in the same way as I'd been teaching it to their younger siblings:  reading it out loud, discussing it (or just "wondering together" about it), and sometimes having them copy or memorize it.   But the "magic" wasn't there.  They were often reluctant.   I thought this was a sign of poor work habits, but maybe it's normal?  Thinking back, when they were younger, they did respond to poems the way my current little ones do.    :001_smile:

 

Meanwhile, they seem to be doing fine with math and Latin, which seems to fit with her description.  

 

I do think they should be learning to recite and memorize, but looking back over her advice, it seems as if their progress in those areas is going to be much slower than with the little ones, not faster.    And in the case of recitation, they're likely much more self-conscious and aware of their mistakes (as has often been observed with children's drawing at this age).  I guess this would explain the wailing and gnashing of teeth.  

 

For memorization, I guess it would be best to use the method she describes in chapter XII, choosing short poems and going line by line.  I'll have to make sure nobody else is in earshot, so it might have to be after the little ones are in bed.   Alongside this, I can read some of the longer poems aloud at mealtimes, without expecting any particular response. 

 

BTW, a while back, I bought the children inexpensive "math journals" and "science journals" as a change from plain composition books and binders.  This was for my sake as much as theirs, as it makes it much easier to see what's what.   Of course, we could have made our own book covers, but I was feeling too overwhelmed at the time.  And the grid paper is a bonus.

 

The younger children record all their math-related work in their math journals.  The older ones have dedicated notebooks for their required math (LoF), and they can use the journals for anything extra.   The science journals are just theirs for anything they want to write down.   It's been interesting to see what they come up with!

Edited February 5, 2016 by ElizaG

[Hunter]

I skimmed a remedial chapter a few days ago but got frustrated trying to read the pdf on a screen, went and priced printers, realized the stupid cord alone was $35.00 before I even looked at printers and just gave up for now.

 

I hope someone else with more tech, or that is better at reading pdfs off screens can engage with you. Good luck!

[ElizaG]

Okay... :001_smile:

 

So I've been thinking about how these developmental principles can help us figure out what to do in situations that aren't covered much in her book.  For instance, how do we choose work to offer to a student who's starting at an older age, or who has special needs?   ("Work" would include literary passages for study, as well as various skill-building activities:  observation lessons, chores, handicrafts, etc.)

 

There's some overlap with the role of the Montessori directress, and I'm definitely going to have to look over those resources again.  In particular, when the M. method is used with very atypical or asynchronous students, the directress is supposed to use observation and intuition to figure out how to adapt the activities, so that they fit with the child's development across the board.  This tends to involve much more one-on-one teaching than we'd expect from Montessori -- not just because of the special needs per se, but because these uses of the materials are less obvious and clear-cut, and also because the children don't have peer models for the activities.   So it's pretty close to EFL style "individual instruction," but using the specialized materials that are found in the classroom, instead of whatever is found in the home environment.

 

That's the theory, anyway.  In reality, there are hardly any M. schools that are willing and able to do this.   I can imagine that it could be seen as disruptive to the nice tidy classroom and standard learning sequence.  But the part that makes it easier for us is that we don't have a nice tidy classroom to disrupt.  :laugh:

 

I will dig out my Montessori books, and report back. 

[LostintheCosmos]

That's the theory, anyway.  In reality, there are hardly any M. schools that are willing and able to do this.   I can imagine that it could be seen as disruptive to the nice tidy classroom and standard learning sequence.  

 

Yeah, like the Montessorian who told my husband that some children just "aren't ready for the environment" and are also apparently just not her problem.  :mad: Anyhoo, I've been wanting to look back at what MM herself said about dealing with deviations for a few months now, but haven't gotten around to it. Have we talked about Children Who Are Not Yet Peaceful? Any other resources you recommend along these lines?

[LostintheCosmos]

Here's my EFL update:

 

We are still doing Hiawatha! :laugh: Right now, my seven-year-old is finishing up memorizing Hiawatha's Childhood, and we're still reading through the whole poem aloud together. I've gotten a lot better, I think, at discussing the poem as we go - we read through a section, stop and define any words that are unfamiliar, talk about the imagery, maybe look up a picture of something if we're not familiar with it. Recently, I've been trying out some of the things Fr. Donnelly suggests to aid understanding, asking questions like, "In what way is Hiawatha like a sleep-walker as he tracks the red deer? Is he actually asleep? Is he wearing his pajamas? No? Then how are they similar?" I have stopped doing any grammar for the time being while I think through whether it's really necessary right now. I kind of have this idea of doing Montessori-style sentence analysis with our poetry at some point, but it's a very vague idea still.

 

EFL arithmetic is working out well. I did do some Montessori bead material work with this child when he was five or so, so I'm not sure how much that "indirect preparation" has to do with his picking up on math pretty easily. He still talks about building his arithmetic house, so that one lecture long ago made quite an impression somehow.  :laugh:

 

We've been doing copywork with a fountain pen and the exercises in Educating the Child at Home. 

 

Latin isn't happening consistently yet, but the seven-year-old is learning to serve the Latin Mass, so that's fine for now. 

 

The five-year-old is finally taking an interest in written language. We did a lot of I Spy and now are using sandpaper letters and our moveable alphabet in conjunction with EFL's reading scheme. I also have her sound out what she can when I'm reading aloud to her and the toddler. The plan is to continue this blend of EFL and Montessori/Dwyer.

 

This child has also memorized a lot of Mother Goose at this point, including rhymes I haven't formally worked on with her. I'm thinking it's probably about time to start her on something longer - I might try the Pied Piper to give myself a Hiawatha break. 

 

Still no systematic sense-training activities...maybe some day...

 

I continue to think a lot about EFL's first "rock" of "simplicity of surroundings." Adding the fourth kid and my husband starting a demanding new job this year have left me feeling stretched quite thin, and I want to believe that paring down still more could help. But we're already at the point at which further simplification would start to make us a little weird - okay, well I actually LOLed when a re-read that because we're already pretty weird, why am I so worried about getting a little weirder?

 

Well, I had one or two other things I hoped to mention about chores and whatnot but the baby is up and "quiet" time is over...back into the fray.

[ElizaG]

(ETA:  sorry for cross-posting, LostCove!   I just noticed your update.)

 

There have been a few mentions of that book on the boards [Children Who Are Not Yet Peaceful], but maybe not in the EFL threads.   It's definitely one that I'll be re-reading. 

 

Of course, one major difference is that they had an established community that was working well in Montessori terms, and these children were (self-)excluded from it because of their behavior.   So, as they became normalized through their work, there was a place for them to fit into.  Whereas I think all of us who are looking into EFL are in the process of trying to "prepare" ourselves and our environments, at the same time that we're working with our individual children.  So it gets a bit muddled at times. 

 

On that note, I really liked The Tao of Montessori, which is more of a general work about the art of teaching.   I just noticed that the author has a new book, A Delicate Task, which I haven't read yet.  It also looks very good.  

 

There are also some links to special needs resources here, but I haven't checked those out at all. 

 

This whole line of thought is proving helpful, though.  :001_smile:   I had forgotten how positive EFL was about Montessori. 

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

"Simplicity of surroundings" is our greatest challenge here.  I decided yesterday that we're putting away nearly all of the toys for Lent.   

 

They can still use all of the things that aren't exactly toys -- board games, craft kits, sports equipment -- but only if they're able to keep them tidy.   You leave it out, it goes to the desert for 40 days.  ;)

[LostintheCosmos]

I looked back through the chapter at the end of Educating the Child at Home on remediating the child who is behind. The things that jumped out at me this time around-

 

First, she says there are three main causes of "backwardness": physical, mental, and "local-i.e., caused by unfavorable environment" (not sure exactly what she means by this last one - dysfunctional family life?). Her discussion addresses mainly remediating mental factors, "lack of self control, lack of memory, an abnormally slow process of mind-maturing, complete absorption in some line of thought entirely outside of the school curriculum."

 

I'd like to think more about the mechanisms that lead to a stunted power of concentration. EFL says, "By false mental training this power, or as much of it as the child has acquired at play, is impaired. Many grown people can concentrate only at play. They retain the child mind." Is it right to see a correlation between EFL's concentration acquired at play and MM's observations about concentration in the first plane of development? Both would seem to be concentration that is sparked by a child's free choice of some interesting-to-him activity. What exactly does EFL mean by "false mental training"? How does it impede the maturation of a mind that can concentrate at will?

 

So, for the "normal" child, the initial training in willed concentration is mostly via chores, but for the "backward" child, EFL has suggestions for accomplishing this in his academic work also. Interestingly - and this seems to fit what you've observed in your children, ElizaG - she singles out arithmetic as particularly suitable for this. The main thrust of her suggestions are that child who is behind at the age of ten or twelve is by that point, a discouraged child, and it is of primary importance to show them that steady effort will yield fruits that the child can see and judge for himself. It seems that maybe one aspect of the "false mental training" that causes "backwardness" is maybe contriving academic work in a way that the child cannot see any connection between his effort and the results - I can think of a couple of different ways that might happen: developmentally inappropriate expectations, standards that require input not given in school (thinking of the "language gap" and "school-dependent learners"), poor pacing, not breaking work down into small enough steps.

 

This also seems to shed light on why Donna Goertz puts so much emphasis on handwork in Children Who are Not Yet Peaceful - it's a very natural activity for showing a child that steady, consistent effort builds on itself and thus for giving a child a sense of his own powers, maybe especially for the "academically disidentified" child who needs some encouragement before he is ready to tackle math again.

[ElizaG]

I think an unfavorable environment might include -- for example -- a lack of constructive things to do, no access to the outdoors, no suitable literature, or adults giving wrong messages.   These factors could be present in urban poverty, but also in the "hothouse" situations described in books such as Understood Betsy and The Secret Garden.

 

The questionnaire that she used to include in her magazine advertisments has some hints along these lines. 

 

Also, I can't find the reference now, but at one point, she says that dividing the elementary work up into short lessons on different subjects will damage the child's ability to concentrate.   This is clearly a point where she's much closer to Montessori than to CM. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by ElizaG

[ElizaG]

I'm not finding much in the Montessori literature about normalization outside the standard classroom environment.   

 

After my last post, I re-read Understood Betsy.  It was a good reminder about the importance of talking less, and being calm and unflappable.  But I've noticed that when I'm successful at that, certain other family members tend to make up the difference.  Some of them seem to crave drama, and others are just very verbal.  It's hard when they all reinforce each other.  I tried making uncluttered "quiet spaces" in remote corners of the house, so those of us who have had enough can retreat, but they tend to follow us in there.   :tongue_smilie:

 

What would Aunt Abigail do if she had to live with Cousin Frances?  Just typing that is painful.  In a 1910s novel, perhaps there would be divine intervention in the form of an unfortunate accident with a pan of applesauce.  :001_rolleyes:  

 

One idea I did notice in my reading was that there are two main streams of energy -- body and mind -- and deviations come from their development being out of sync.  That makes a lot of sense for our family. 

 

The children are doing more outside sports, and I think it's helping somewhat, but I feel as if we also need some sort of organized physical activity we can do at home on a daily basis, especially for the younger ones.  Montessori had "walking on the line," with its many variations, but I've never been able to get that going (not enough space indoors, and not enough children to make it seem natural, IYKWIM).

 

What does EFL say about this?  I can't remember anything, aside from having them do household chores.  Which doesn't seem to be working -- perhaps because many of today's chores are far less physically intensive than those of 1914.  Loading the dishwasher vs. washing dishes.  Switching the laundry vs. washing clothes.   Running the mixer, blender, or food processor vs. preparing everything by hand.  As Marshall McLuhan put it, the human's main role is as a sort of servo mechanism.  ;)

[Hunter]

I'm laughing at your description of chores. Memories of suburbia are getting hazier and hazier, and we seldom had all the bell and whistles, anyway.

 

But here, now, laundry can mean dragging it two miles to an affordable laundry mat. Dishes are washed by hand. Not only is food prepared with minimal equipment, but first it needs to be carried for at least a half mile to even get it into an apartment. Bargain shopping means lugging it on a both a bus and a subway, and average shopping is carrying it two miles.

 

I've been reading a lot of Longfellow. I still don't like Wreck of the Heperus as memory work for the beginners, but I like it for intermediate work the year I've planned the Tempest. I do like the idea of students having a volume of poetry spread out over many years and integrated with their curriculum and intimate knowledge of a poet, similar to the Bible and Shakespeare. I'm just trying to make what EFL suggested work, and tweak it my worldview and circumstances.

 

I splurged on the Library of America volume of Longfellow. It should arrive in a couple days. It really is a beautiful little book. Almost like a Bible in quality and potential for homemade lessons.

[ElizaG]

I'm laughing at your description of chores. Memories of suburbia are getting hazier and hazier, and we seldom had all the bell and whistles, anyway.

 

But here, now, laundry can mean dragging it two miles to an affordable laundry mat. Dishes are washed by hand. Not only is food prepared with minimal equipment, but first it needs to be carried for at least a half mile to even get it into an apartment. Bargain shopping means lugging it on a both a bus and a subway, and average shopping is carrying it two miles.

After posting, I was thinking that "physically intensive" might not be the right word.  With so many of us, there's a lot to lug around (groceries, laundry, piles of books).  It's usually over short distances, but still, I think it counts as "heavy work" for children. 

 

I think what we're missing might be more on the skill side.   Maybe multi-tasking?   Where they get so good at something -- be it "walking on the line," or peeling a carrot -- that they can do it automatically, while doing something else.   Mine aren't at that point yet, and don't really seem to be any closer than they were.  

 

Well, that's not quite true.  One of my children is able to write neatly in cursive, while thinking.   I guess that's something!  :hat:

[LostintheCosmos]

I think EFL also suggests handwork and making things (I'm vaguely remembering a passage about what to do with the "bookish child" - will try to look it up later), but, ElizaG, have you considered de-automating some of your household work? It may sound crazy, but we just spent six weeks without a dishwasher and I kind of actually loved it. Now that it's working again, I totally feel like I'm serving the machine rather than the machine serving us - the dishes I want are never clean when I want them because I "have" to wait until the darn thing is full to make it worth running and so on. I really think I'm just going to stop using it for our normal breakfast and lunch dishes at least. 

 

This is maybe another aspect of what "simplicity of surroundings" can mean - simplifying our tasks so that we (and by we I mean, the children :laugh:) can do them manually. Hm, I think I've just resolved my question about whether we "need" a Vitamix. 

 

One idea I did notice in my reading was that there are two main streams of energy -- body and mind -- and deviations come from their development being out of sync.  That makes a lot of sense for our family. 

 

This is very interesting.

 

Hunter, after searching for an edition with more helpful notes and coming up with nothing, I wound up with that version of Longfellow also. It is pretty!

[ElizaG]

Not crazy - my mother did choose to get rid of the dishwasher, and had few other kitchen appliances, so I didn't grow up with the idea that any of that is essential. But we had a small family, and she did almost all of the work herself, as her own mother had done before her (with some help from a hired girl, in those days). If she had tried to switch over to EFL's advice, she would have been even more puzzled than I am.

 

One problem is that my kitchen (like most I've seen) is not designed for labor-intensive cooking, or for having multiple people in it. It was a bit better when the house was built, but the previous owners did some remodeling that made it less practical and less pleasant, though it does now have more storage space - for appliances and processed foods, no doubt.

 

Another, perhaps deeper issue is social and cultural. I read somewhere recently that "all women are peasants." This puts a sharper point on things I was reading a few years ago, e.g. from Marcel Jousse. In rising through an educational system that was designed by and for elite males, we've lost lost the ability to combine culture (whether liberal or "folk") with our domestic duties, and with the mundane material side of life. With the result that 20th century attempts at revival through folklore, scouting, camping, handicrafts, etc. were sort of add-ons.

 

And I'm pretty sure I cannot keep trying to compartmentalize my time, or my children's, into "labor-intensive housework" and "liberal arts." As if from 8:00 to 8:45, we're the servants, and from 8:45 to 10:00, we're the ladies and gentlemen of leisure. KWIM? But I get the feeling from CiRCE, and the whole "Classical Christian" school movement, that we're supposed to do that. Or, if not us, someone is going to have to do it. Maybe the cleaning staff, or the factory workers at Glad and Nabisco.

 

Even the Catholic religious orders that ran the colleges and academies used to have two tiers. The elite members would teach, and the lesser members would do the chores (with or without lay servants). Vatican II did away with that, for the most part. But it's hard to see how the system could run otherwise.

 

One could argue that it's largely through technology (broadly understood) that women and working-class people have been able to aspire to liberal learning. First through inexpensive printed books and classroom education, now also audiobooks and streaming lectures. And perhaps also through machines that took over the more routine work. I'm not saying that's definitely true, but it's something we need to consider.

 

Thinking of another branch of our family that tends to be less skeptical of technology... the older generation (born around the time EFL was writing; educated at good Catholic schools) were able to combine the "gadgets" with a fairly simple life. They used appliances to get the work done, then used their leisure time for leisure, including reading, music, and parish work. When we were looking at houses in our area, I saw several whose contents gave a similar impression. One woman had what must have been one of the original Cuisinarts, yellowed with age but in perfect shape, with all the parts neatly stored in a homemade rack by the sink.

 

But it seems as if the generation that followed them had less understanding of true leisure, and a much weaker identification with the Western and Christian culture that they (the conservatives, anyway) claimed to be defending. The latest technology and material goods were valued, but often for no discernible reason, except perhaps for the sake of social conformity or the "coolness factor." Yellowed appliances would definitely not qualify!

 

So then that's led to a backlash of young families wanting to go back to the land, reconnect with their roots, and give their children a simpler life. Historians would note that this was happening in the time when EFL was writing (she could certainly be viewed as part of that "movement"), and again in the late 60s/early 70s.

 

IDK, I feel as if we need to take stock, or we might end up throwing the dishes out with the dishwater. Or spending half the day poking at them with a clettering twig, a la Cold Comfort Farm. :-D

 

One of the things I appreciate about EFL is that she doesn't go very far down that idealistic, melancholy path, where the IHP people sometimes seem to get stuck. She just finds ways to get things done, going by intuition, experience, and what's available -- including inexpensive mass-produced photographs, ring binders, and roll-up chalkboards, all of which were fairly recent technologies. We might have many things that might be of some use with her approach to homeschooling and family life, that weren't even imagined then. So we do need to use discernment. (I just learned recently that household bleach was a brand-new product around 1920. Not that I recommend giving that to your preschoolers!!!)

[LostintheCosmos]

Well, I can't pretend I don't have some reactionary Luddite impulses, but they are pretty much entirely ideological and I do try to keep them in check. After all, our own flight to the land - or, more accurately, flight to a few acres just outside of a medium-sized city - wouldn't really be possible without portable electric fencing and a car for DH to get to his income-producing job. ;-)

 

And actually, I've become more moderate on kitchen technologies, as a recently gave up my quixotic attempt to hand knead all our bread and have delegated that to the kitchenaid. :-D Discernment seems right - to continue with the dishwasher example, I think more hand washing dishes makes sense for the size of our family and the more practical life-intensive ages of the kids we have now - I assume that as they age and the family grows, the dishwasher could again be more efficient and buy us time for things that are more important then.

 

The bigger question of how to combine leisure and liberal learning with domestic work...whew. First, there surely has to be a distinction made between the kids' use of time and the mother's - I don't "need" to hand wash dishes, but my kids do need some kind of work like that for their own normal development, so there may be some efficiencies that I need to sacrifice for the time being for the children's sake. But that's just life with very young children in general, right? Not the most leisured "season" of a woman's life.

 

Second, I think we need to be sure that technologies are really saving us time and labor, rather than just selling themselves to us on that promise but actually raising standards and creating unnecessary complexity (there's a kind of interesting book on this, More Work for Mother, I think it's called, will look it up when I'm not on the iPad). I haven't read Illich's stuff on convivial technologies, yet - I wonder if anyone has applied that to specifically domestic technologies? It would be helpful, too, if there were better educational technologies for children that didn't encourage "haptic simplification" (there's some blended learning educational tech startup calling itself "Montessori 2.0" because they have prepared environments that include tablets loaded with educational apps - someone didn't really get that whole "from the hand to the mind" thing - but hey, who needs guides to observe the children when you can have data!).

 

Some other disconnected thoughts (I picked the wrong coffee shop this morning - the one I'm at has some way too loud live music interfering with my ability to string thoughts together):

 

How much of the educational system we've inherited do you think is problematic because it was designed for elite males and how much do think it might also be problematic because currently, it promotes a dialectical rather than oratorical education? In theory, a more rhetorical education seems like it would be easier to integrate into an active life - I mean, traditionally it was meant to prepare for an active life of politics. Which was still conceived of as a leisured man's activity, but neither was it ivory tower contemplation or advanced scientific pursuits, which seems to me to require a different kind of concentration and leisure. Maybe anyway, I want to think about that some more.

 

This question about compartmentalization vs. integration is a really interesting one. On the one hand, you could argue that the monastic model is a compartimentalized one - living a rule that sets certain periods dedicated to work, to prayer, and to study. Perhaps that just makes more sense for a community of adults, though.

 

For children who are still doing the work of their development and the individual household with just two adults to manage all the work, that seems less workable (although, I dunno, maybe some of those 19th and early 20th century ideas about women combining forces for communal housekeeping are worth a second look). EFL has been so helpful for me in providing some concrete examples of what that can look like (the one that kind of sums it up for me is the mother who recites poetry with her daughter while brushing her hair every morning) and also in giving guidance on the truly essential. If we accept that we will never have the leisure time associated with liberal learning historically, it becomes so so important to restrict our attention to the essential. Montessori and CGS have helped me think about that, too - discerning what is busywork and letting go of it, trusting the child, etc.

 

One of these days I will get around to reading Caroline Winterer and that other guy whose name I've forgotton's work on classicism in the early republic because I am so very curious about how it was - it really seems like a unique time in which the stuff of liberal learning became a part of the wider "popular" culture, although obviously not in that everyone got a traditional classical education or learned classical languages. Winterer even has a book specifically on women and classicism.

 

So, to sum up, in addition to the fact that real work in the real world is necessary for children's healthy development, I'm just pretty attached to the idea that some amount of manual and mental labor are for everyone - I don't know whether that's because I'm a Christian or an American or a woman or a just a melancholy idealist, but I really really have a hard time with the idea that the answer is hire a housekeeper or outsource everything to the market. Not that I actually have another answer, yet, except muddling through.

 

ETA: Maybe here's a different angle at which to approach some of these issues: to what extent is liberal education a creation of formal institutions of learning and to what extent does it require those institutions? Can liberal learning be transmitted informally by the other institutions that transmit culture, particularly the home and family, in ways that are more organic to those institutions rather than trying to replicate the formal, institutional means on a smaller scale?

Edited February 20, 2016 by LostCove

[Hunter]

I don't know. I guess I have just never fully experienced American suburban homemaking. And I didn't realize that.

 

In my birth country, I was born top 1% but we had water shortages and imported food shortages and insects and mold and government red-tape that slowed everything down.

 

Later, living in American welfare slums, we just really didn't have stuff.

 

And the little fishing village was out in the woods.

 

And living on the boat was, well... a boat. :lol:

 

I could just go on and on, but...there was always something limiting, and I had early on developed habits of just adapting and doing things in the simple manner.

 

All the art supplies and things to buy for Waldorf are the parts I skip. The rhythm stuff that others skip or struggle with comes naturally.

 

At first I struggled with some of the CM nature study stuff, but then I realized it wasn't CM herself that I was struggling with, but instead looking at the modern attempts as models.

 

I haven't loaded a dishwasher in almost 10 years. I had kinda forgot they exist. I don't even have a toaster anymore; I really would like one of those again. Maybe a vegetable peeler, too, but a knife works fine most of the time.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Hunter

[Hunter]

My ex-husband's grandmother talked about the day her mom died when she was 5 years old. The details have always stuck with me.

 

They rented a "cold-water flat". Nanny and her mom were washing clothes in a tub on the table.

 

I've never done a tub on a table, despite doing a lot of hand washing. I've used sinks, bathtubs, and the ocean, and a river.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Hunter

[Hunter]

To me, doing things the simple way, has little to do with rural living. I've often done it urban and in the suburbs. I just didn't have stuff.

 

I used cloth diaper because I couldn't afford disposable ones. And when I had two kids in cloth diapers and not enough of them, I used some cut up towels and old clothes. I was in the suburbs.

 

I didn't think anything of it. I just instinctively used what I had. The baby was leaking. I needed something to mop up the leak.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Hunter

[ElizaG]

First, there surely has to be a distinction made between the kids' use of time and the mother's - I don't "need" to hand wash dishes, but my kids do need some kind of work like that for their own normal development, so there may be some efficiencies that I need to sacrifice for the time being for the children's sake. But that's just life with very young children in general, right? Not the most leisured "season" of a woman's life.

 

The talk of "seasons" always has me a bit on guard, because in my experience, it's often used to excuse some sort of situation that might be fixable.  It starts to feel like a Christian form of hand-waving, especially since it's an exceptionally vague term, even more than the linear and widely used alternative, "stages."   And the Biblical aspect just makes it worse, like if you succeeded in becoming holier, you would not even question why you were in such a state.   So -- while I'm not implying you meant any of the above! -- this just makes me look even harder at what's going on. 

 

In her early magazine articles, EFL said that inefficiency was the cause of most of the problems in American homes, schools, and society in general.  This was a common belief at the time, although most people thought of efficiency as synonymous with Taylorism -- mechanical, value-free, standardized -- which is the opposite of her approach.   She obviously saw the solution more in learning to work with the mysterious powers of living systems, as experienced in the family and in nature, and as described in literature. 

 

In particular, I wonder how many of today's "just a season" trials are a result of parents -- perhaps unconsciously -- adopting the modern child-centered approach to family life.   Which is not the same thing as the child-centered approach to teaching.   But in homeschooling, it can be hard to see the distinction. 

 

So getting back to the chores, I think it makes sense to show the children how to do them by hand, but it seems sort of like make-work to expect them to always do them that way, if we ourselves would choose to use a machine (and if the machine is safe for the children to use).   Not to mention that at some point, they will notice that the family's way of doing X is different from the societal norm, and ask why.  "Because we believe it's good for children's development" is likely to be much less convincing than... well, than almost any other reason I can think of.  :laugh:   

 

And coming at this from a different direction -- is it true that manual work is very important for child development, but less important for adult maintenance, so to speak?   From what you've said elsewhere, I think you'd doubt that as much as I do. 

 

Second, I think we need to be sure that technologies are really saving us time and labor, rather than just selling themselves to us on that promise but actually raising standards and creating unnecessary complexity (there's a kind of interesting book on this, More Work for Mother, I think it's called, will look it up when I'm not on the iPad). I haven't read Illich's stuff on convivial technologies, yet - I wonder if anyone has applied that to specifically domestic technologies?

ITA about this.  And we have More Work for Mother, somewhere around here.  I remember it being interesting. 

 

I went on a break from Illich after getting a bit stuck in what seemed to be his anti-child tendencies.  Or maybe it was more that he overvalued children, such that he didn't think we could ever be worthy of having them.  Which is true, in a sense, but (in what seems to be typical Illich fashion) he took it to logical conclusions, which turn out not to be logical at all.   :blink:   In any case, he seems to have had little to do with children, and avoided writing about them.  But I know he had a great deal to say about women's work.  

 

Will have to think over the rest of your points later, with help from our home coffee shop.   :laugh: 

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by ElizaG

[Hunter]

Right now I'm glad I'm poor and have been poor. I don't have to manufacture pretend work for myself or anyone else.

 

This is probably one of those reasons that low-income homeschoolers have test scores just as high as kids from higher income homes.

[ElizaG]

There's an abundance of work to be done in any large homeschooling family, whatever their income, unless they're hiring multiple full-time helpers. 

 

If we have a machine to speed up the chores, and can use the time saved for study, that's a form of wealth.

 

If we have the time to do the chores by hand at a human pace, and are able to contemplate or talk productively to others while doing them, that's also a form of wealth. 

 

On the other hand, if we work by hand, under conditions that don't permit us to collect our thoughts -- or if we use a machine to save time, but lack the ability to get any lasting benefit from the time saved -- that's poverty, in educational terms.   

 

Something that keeps coming back to me is that the use of technology, whether books, phones, or blenders, tends to require intensive, "locked-in" use of a limited set of our mental and physical capabilities.   Whereas activities that mainly just use ourselves -- face-to-face discussion, walking, doing things with the simplest tools -- tend to be more adaptable, and allow for more spontaneity.  (Have we talked about Juenger's The Failure of Technology?  He gets into this at length.)    So in the family situations we're talking about, once basic subsistence has been taken care of, the greatest wealth comes from having the greatest storehouse of good thoughts, words, skills, and feelings, whether individual or shared.  This sounds like a cliche, but is very literally true.

 

To put it another way -- if we ourselves are culturally lacking, such that we need to make near-constant reference to books and media, we might find it necessary to have more uninterrupted time to teach.  If we have more of a given area of knowledge within ourselves, we will find it easier to integrate with whatever we're doing. 

 

I think this must be what liberal learning is mainly for.  Not so much about joining the "great conversation."  Maybe some of us will do that, and some won't.  And that's fine.  If it enriches the life of one family, or even one person, it's still worthwhile. 

 

I'm having trouble finding that quotation from C.S. Lewis, about how all the apparatus of society exists so that the family can live in their home.  I never thought of it this way before, but the same could be said of liberal and classical education.   It exists for the family. 

[LostintheCosmos]

To put it another way -- if we ourselves are culturally lacking, such that we need to make near-constant reference to books and media, we might find it necessary to have more uninterrupted time to teach.  If we have more of a given area of knowledge within ourselves, we will find it easier to integrate with whatever we're doing. 

 

Yes, this - I think I was trying to get at the manual labor parallel. I can't recite Hiawatha with my daughter while I'm brushing and braiding her hair in the morning either if I have to read it out of a book OR if I'm not very good at braiding hair yet. There is no way around lots of practice to automaticity in manual labor - a child has to peel a lot of carrots before he can do it without really thinking about it. 

 

I think this lack of automaticity in the work of running a home is a large part of the reason why I, at least, feel like I have so little leisure - in terms of both time and mental energy - in this "season." It's not necessarily inherent to life with small children, but the way things are now, a lot of women find themselves having to learn on the job with very little, if any, preparation, and they are stuck using all their time and energy just to get the basic stuff of life done.

 

And, yes, I do think manual labor is important for children and adults but for different reasons. Montessori observed that young children need and want practical life activities for their own sake, not the outcome, and along the way, they develop their senses, control of movement, etc. My kids don't currently need any urging to wash dishes - on the contrary, they would spend all morning re-washing clean dishes if they could - so it just makes sense to have them wash our dishes rather than me load my dishes into the dishwasher in the kitchen while they wash their dishes at a Montessori dishwashing table in the other room (see, Hunter, I could be worse - I could be spending $400 on a child-sized tool for our pretend work  :laugh:)

 

ETA: Is this the CS Lewis quotation? 

I think I can understand that feeling about a housewife’s work being like that of Sisyphus (who was the stone rolling gentleman). But it is surely, in reality, the most important work in the world. What do ships, railways, mines, cars, government etc exist for except that people may be fed, warmed, and safe in their own homes? As Dr Johnson said, ‘To be happy at home is the end of all human endeavour’. (1st to be happy, to prepare for being happy in our own real Home hereafter: 2nd, in the meantime, to be happy in our houses.) We wage war in order to have peace, we work in order to have leisure, we produce food in order to eat it. So your job is the one for which all others exist.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by LostCove

[Hunter]

Some stuff being posted here, I don't even understand. For awhile, I have noticed that more affluent people advizing lower-income people were not always equipped to do so, and they didn't understand at the most basic level.

 

I realize, right now, in this thread, that I am clueless about what it is like at the deepest level for some younger and more affuent families to homeschool.

[Hunter]

That dishwashing table. I can't even laugh. Just, wow. What have we come to.

 

I do see how a certain teacher, within the limits placed on her, might choose to use that table, as a last resort, to mimic a real life that doesn't exist for that child. It is just so sad that it would come to that. Or at least that is not a life I want to partake of. I would feel sadder to live that life than...well...lots of things.

[elizahelen]

This life really does exist. Think affluent children raised with tv and nannies who wash, dress, brush, pick up, make beds and do everything for them, with no real demands or discipline. It's how I was raised. But I'm grateful for those relationships, not the environment.

 

Sent from my XT1094 using Tapatalk

[regentrude]

That dishwashing table. I can't even laugh. Just, wow. What have we come to.

 

I do see how a certain teacher, within the limits placed on her, might choose to use that table, as a last resort, to mimic a real life that doesn't exist for that child. It is just so sad that it would come to that. Or at least that is not a life I want to partake of. I would feel sadder to live that life than...well...lots of things.

 

I am not sure what is so ridiulous about the dishwashing table.

I can see how this can have a great place in a Montessori preschool where children take turns washing the real dishes they used

at a real meal in a station that is child size - because the school most likely does not have child size facilities in the kitchen or no other room where the kids can safely do the task. The school room may not have plumbing, for example.

I do not see how this mimics real life - the kid performs the actual task, just not at an industrial size sink, but at a small bowl suitable for small hands at a height suitable for short legs.

Just like they would probably give a small knife with a blunted tip to a 3 y/o with which the child could do actual cutting or buttering of bread.

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by regentrude

[Hunter]

The table is a TOY, right?

[regentrude]

The table is a TOY, right?

 

No. It is a piece of Montessori classroom equipment intended for a school or daycare.

Edited February 22, 2016 by regentrude

[Hunter]

So the kid goes to school, to imitate being at home, but a home that no longer exists in 2016 for people that can afford Montessori?

 

And homeschooling Montessori would imitate the school, imitating the home, that no longer exists in 2016 for people able to afford the table?

 

:lol: Please just let me be poor. I am starting to really like being poor.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Hunter

[regentrude]

So the kid goes to school, to imitate being at home, but a home that no longer exists in 2016 for people that can afford Montessori?

 

I don't see the need for sarcasm. Just because a child attends school for a few hours a day does not mean the home does not exist.

 

Eating real food from real dishes at school and washing those dishes by hand at school beats being handed junk food in styrofoam containers that the kid throws away at the end of the meal.

 

There are plenty of reasons why families send their children to school. I thought we had gotten past shaming people for their schooling choices.

[ElizaG]

Regentrude -- I think what Hunter was trying to say was that the home where something similar to that dishwashing set-up might really be used -- i.e, one without indoor plumbing -- no longer exists among families whose children attend Montessori schools. 

 

This isn't strictly true; Montessori exists in many other countries, and serves children of many different income levels.  But it is virtually always the case in the US.  

 

I'm also not sure if it's entirely accurate to say that the Montessori classroom was modeled on the home (ETA this is not in response to regentrude!).  She had other criteria, and the children's responses to the materials were ultimately the determining factor.  That might actually be a helpful point to consider if we're trying to follow her thought processes, not just take guesses at how to adapt the system she came up with. 

Edited February 22, 2016 by ElizaG

[lulalu]

So because I saw this post I took my weekend to look into EFL.

 

Wow! Hiawatha at 5 seems like so much more work than I would have even thought for that age! Has anyone been able to follow her poem suggestions? I just can't see that as an easy task.

 

Anyone know of a blog that follows her methods? I feel like I need to get a better picture of what this looks like in 2016.

 

I do really appreciate her thoughts on building the foundation firmly. I tend to want to push acedemics earlier than I should, but stopping to think through the foundation is good. I need to spend time working on focus, following directions and chores this year with my son.

 

I like her thoughts on not pushing reading so much. I just recently reviewed the Teaching the Trivium and I always wonder how to read 2 hours a day! Just doesnt happen here! But reading EFL gave a good remnder that humans were smart before books and the mind can be built through memory.

 

Just wondering if I could pull it off! Need to see what it looks like today.

[ElizaG]

I wish there were a blog written by someone who's using her approach today, but I think this thread is pretty much it.   :001_smile:  

 

A major part of how it looks in 2016, apparently, is that you choose a worthy and challenging work of literature and start reading it.  As you go along, you look up the unfamiliar references, and commit some passages to memory.  In the process, you end up learning about and discussing all kinds of fascinating subjects, drawing together threads from things you've already learned, developing spiritually, and making connections with your culture and with one another.   

 

And sometimes your children even get to take part in this!   :laugh:

[Hunter]

I think I'm going to have to find a way to print out Educating the Child at Home, so I can really study it.

 

Or figure out a way of taking notes on eBooks. My new laptop, that I charged despite not being able to pay for, probably can do a lot of things I know nothing about.

 

I seem to be walking away from EFL readings with an entirely different interpretation than others.

[lulalu]

So in spending time thinking through this all I've been wondering some things so please help me think this through

 

Would a longer piece to memorize replace other memory wwork? We currently do short Bible verses, and short poems. Would this need totake the place of short poems?

 

Wondering if it would be beneficial to pick an epic poem to go along with what we are learning in history. Pulling more learning together.

 

Hiawatha just seems too big to tackle first in my mind. Maybe I am not brave enough yet- I dont know. But would memorizing the song of Moses and Miriam (Exodus 15) be an epic poem of sorts? It would follow what I have planned for k. Or is there a better chunk of scripture?

 

I do really like the though of one poem a year instead of choosing many shorter ones to learn.

[ElizaG]

And, yes, I do think manual labor is important for children and adults but for different reasons. Montessori observed that young children need and want practical life activities for their own sake, not the outcome, and along the way, they develop their senses, control of movement, etc. My kids don't currently need any urging to wash dishes - on the contrary, they would spend all morning re-washing clean dishes if they could (...)

That makes sense.  I was thinking in terms of elementary aged children.  In Montessori terms, most of mine are past the first plane, and the eldest is now in the third plane, which is a whole other deal.   

 

This might actually be the biggest difference between trying to use her ideas at home and in a classroom.  Just when I'm getting a sense of what to do, one or more children are moving on to another plane.  And unfortunately, most of their baggage goes with them!  ;)  

[Hunter]

So in spending time thinking through this all I've been wondering some things so please help me think this through

 

Would a longer piece to memorize replace other memory wwork? We currently do short Bible verses, and short poems. Would this need totake the place of short poems?

 

Wondering if it would be beneficial to pick an epic poem to go along with what we are learning in history. Pulling more learning together.

 

Hiawatha just seems too big to tackle first in my mind. Maybe I am not brave enough yet- I dont know. But would memorizing the song of Moses and Miriam (Exodus 15) be an epic poem of sorts? It would follow what I have planned for k. Or is there a better chunk of scripture?

 

I do really like the though of one poem a year instead of choosing many shorter ones to learn.

No matter what any famous educator says, you need to do what works for YOU right NOW.

 

I bet EFL got a lot of her Longfellow ideas from what she had seen done with the Bible, psalters, and cathechisms. To turn around and do what was done before EFL makes perfect sense to me.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Hunter

[lulalu]

Yes I do know finding what works in our family is best! That is part of the reason I like to read a lot of books on methods and ideas and then take and use what resonates with me best.

 

I do like this thought about long epic poems just trying to think through how to apply it. Cause I just cant see Hiawatha going well over here!

[Hunter]

Longfellow is starting to grow on me in general at this stage of my life, but I have no intentions of using Hiawatha as the poem to teach reading with.

 

But I did buy the pretty little American Library edition of his poems, and I think visiting the same author/book every year is incredibly grounding.

[Hunter]

At this point, for my current plan, a little bit of Hiawatha's childhood will be read for 1st grade, and more of Hiawatha will be read for 5th grade. And I think some more will be added in grades 10 and 11. I don't have room on my current spread sheet, but as I read more of Longfellwow and become more familiar with him, I'll be scheduling bits and bobs as they best enrich the year's main topics.

[lulalu]

Yes I like the idea of adding it as it enriches other studies or pulling other studies from the poem.

[ElizaG]

So in spending time thinking through this all I've been wondering some things so please help me think this through

 

Would a longer piece to memorize replace other memory wwork? We currently do short Bible verses, and short poems. Would this need totake the place of short poems?

 

Wondering if it would be beneficial to pick an epic poem to go along with what we are learning in history. Pulling more learning together.

 

Hiawatha just seems too big to tackle first in my mind. Maybe I am not brave enough yet- I dont know. But would memorizing the song of Moses and Miriam (Exodus 15) be an epic poem of sorts? It would follow what I have planned for k. Or is there a better chunk of scripture?

 

I do really like the though of one poem a year instead of choosing many shorter ones to learn.

We've discussed some of this before (epic or Bible; if Bible, which sections), though I can't remember if it was in this thread, or one of the others. 

 

Something to keep in mind is that in 1914, history - as a subject - was just starting to be added to the primary school curriculum.  Many teachers still believed that the historical poems and stories found in school readers were enough.   EFL seems to have been moderately traditional on this point; IIRC, she said that the parent's answering of the child's questions about the poems would provide enough history up to age 10, but she also mentioned the possibility of reading a couple of "child's histories" aloud (though she didn't recommend specific titles). 

 

Epics were actually sung, more than recited; Longfellow acknowledged this in the full title of the poem, "The Song of Hiawatha."  And so were the Psalms, which have long been among of the "most memorized" parts of the Bible.  I think it was Bluegoat who suggested learning to sing part of a traditional English version of the Psalter.   If you're interested, maybe you could also find one for Exodus 15.  :001_smile:

[Hunter]

There are still some psalm-only churches that only sing psalms and not hymns. Some of these psalters include other songs sung in the Bible. Often these songs are in common meter so that most any common meter tune can be sung.

 

The Scottish Metric Psalter was used as a reader. Don potter compiled a list of psalms suitable for beginners to use as a reader. I'm not sure if he is still selling it.

 

Back not long after Y2K I was on a message board in Scotland where a lot of this stuff was talked about. I have owned some resources that I had to order from Scotland.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Hunter

[ElizaG]

Before I forget - here's a page with links to the PDF and e-book versions of The Failure of Technology, by Friederich Georg Jünger. 

 

The author of the blog post suggests that Jünger might have been able to see the core issues so clearly "due to his position at a less developed stage of technology, which allowed a more detached, objective perspective."   I guess this could also be said of EFL and the structures and methods of modern education.

[hisacorn]

Sooo. Just wondering.

 

Since my only and last student is 12, would there be any advantage to reading the works of EFL? Her methods sound wonderful, but from what I've read here, they are really for the younger set.

 

Thank you!

 

[Hunter]

Sooo. Just wondering.

 

Since my only and last student is 12, would there be any advantage to reading the works of EFL? Her methods sound wonderful, but from what I've read here, they are really for the younger set.

 

Thank you!

For a 12 year old, I think reading Beechick's 3R's would be more profitable. I use some of the 3R methods past 12, especially the spelling.

 

But the booklist in the back of Educating the Child at Home is worth reading for anyone. That booklist is right up there with Dirda's Patterning Works list.

[ElizaG]

Sooo. Just wondering.

 

Since my only and last student is 12, would there be any advantage to reading the works of EFL? Her methods sound wonderful, but from what I've read here, they are really for the younger set.

 

Thank you!

Well, it depends.

 

In one sense, her books can be taken as presenting a fairly specific system for teaching the 3 R's and preparing children to learn independently.   This part is less relevant to homeschooling a 12 year old, although some of the methods she suggests for literature and "observation lessons" can be used with all ages.

 

In another sense, she's writing about a holistic view of family life and education, based on a set of moral, spiritual, and cultural values.  The specific plan she suggests for the younger ones is just one possible outgrowth of that.   In this sense, I think her work is worth reading (skimming over some parts) for those who are raising or teaching children of any age, but this depends on whether or not her overall philosophy resonates with yours.   

 

TBH, I wouldn't really have been drawn to her system if I didn't agree substantially with her on the core issues.  It has turned out to be even harder than expected -- partly because of challenges within our family, and partly just because it's so countercultural even by homeschooling standards -- though I think it is "working" more or less as intended.  







My impression is that there are some people on this thread who are in the same boat as me, and others who are more drawn to using some of the academic advice as part of a different overall approach that fits better with their values (or, in Hunter's case, one that would suit her students).   This might explain why we're getting different messages from her writings.   

[ElizaG]

I just realized that I'm quite happily using some Beechick methods (LLATL) in the context of EFL -- and Hunter, last I heard, was thinking about using some EFL methods in the context of Beechick.    

 

Not sure if that adds any clarity, but in my current addled state, I found it amusing.    :hat:  

[LostintheCosmos]

One thing I had mean to mention in my EFL update was that I've been looking at some of the reference materials that she suggests at the end of Educating the Child at Home. One that I particularly liked was the nature study book, Hodge's Nature Study and Life, not so much because of the specific nature-related content, but because it gives a helpful (to me) model of how to approach nature study in a way that starts with what is closest and most relevant to the child (or the nature-knowledge-deficient adult in this case). 

 

The geography text she recommends, Tarr and McMurry, is similar, although for whatever reason it's not clicking with me as much as the Hodge book, perhaps because I know even less about geography than I do nature. :unsure: I'd like to compare it eventually to some of the ones you always recommend, Hunter. 

 

Has anyone looked at EFL's recommended "books for mothers"?

[ElizaG]

It's been a while, but I remember looking through some of the books she suggested for mothers. in general, they seemed more dated and less useful than her work, but there were some worthwhile bits. She probably wouldn't have had much to choose from, as the field of "child-study" was in its very early days.

 

If there's one in particular you want to discuss, please do. :-)