What does Classical Education mean to you?

[Wind-in-my-hair]

What does Classical Education mean to you?

 

To me, its all about skills, skills, skills. We are heading into grade 1, more than halfway through our phonics program, and liking our grammar and composition programs, as well. We are still in search of a math program, and that has been delaying us from getting on to other business like art, history, science, and foreign language. 

 

I have been tempted to give all that up and jump into a CM-driven program. I really, really like certain aspects of CM and I did a mad search of my town's used book sellers and my local library to see if I had the resources to begin a new program. From what I understand of the CM approach and the focus on living books, I like. But then, I think: Where's room for logic in the middle grades? Why no Latin? No grammar until grade 4? But we love our grammar lessons! Latin and logic, in particular, are two subjects I am most looking forward to learning with my son. 

 

To me, classical education means having your child keep at it until it finally clicks, understanding that natural development will happen, and when it does, the child's mind will know what to do with all that has been carefully taught, because of how it was taught logically. It doesn't delay the instruction until the child's natural inclinations show themselves.

 

Classical education is a scholarly start in education. It might not feel like the most natural way, and it might not click in the beginning, but only by training in persistence can scholarly work start to feel natural. That is how I view it, and that is what keeps me staying the course. 

 

Another major plus is that Classical education keeps the child's skills mostly evenly developed, so that if my child must re-enter school, he will likely do so with ease. This is a big plus because we are re-evaluating our homeschool decision year-by-year, and would want our son to be at or above his grade level as it corresponds to private school in our area. 

 

So although I love other programs out there, I am constantly trying to remind myself: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I think I will like my current homeschool much, much more when we finally get a good math program that we actually enjoy, and start to add history and the arts to our routine. I am really looking forward to Latin, so much that I would like to start it this year, too, albeit a little later. 

 

BTW, there is a reason that "getting it right" matters so much to me. I did not succeed in college, and I know it was because the basic building blocks of knowledge were undermined at every stage of my education.Though I got good grades, a lasting foundation of scholarly skills was not well-established by the time I reached college. I was bent on getting into college, but once there I really didn't have a clue how to read scholarly work or take organized, clear notes. Outlining skills were taught in HS but at no time before that, so it didn't come easily or efficiently when time came to write a paper. I might have squeaked through had I gotten remedial help, but I was already having such a miserable time. I left the college of my dreams, I enrolled in a less demanding college, and then it was bad, because I discovered that most of my peers were much, much worse off than I had been! The professors were constantly trying to bring down the material to the average student's ability. And all this might have been avoided if we had been "brought up" in academics throughout our lives. 

 

[Mrs Twain]

I like what you wrote. It is better to start academic teaching early than late according to the evidence.

 

Also in terms of the best evidence, I would add that content is equally important as skills for a foundation in elementary and middle school years.

[MomintheMountains]

According to what evidence is it better to start academics early? Classical education doesn't mean skills to me. Skills are tools. Classical education is much more than a rigorous education- ultimately it is about educating the heart and mind of the child and tying everything together so that the child knows what it is to be human and how he relates to God. I don't push academics early because I don't feel it is academically appropriate and I don't want my boys to hate learning. In the early years we concentrate mostly on nursery rhymes, fairy tales and good literature, lots of nature walks and fun exposure to Latin. My oldest is 16 and I have changed a lot through the years in how I am educating my children. This is the place I have arrived at and it seems right and makes the most sense. I am starting to see some fruits, too.

[maize]

According to what evidence is it better to start academics early? Classical education doesn't mean skills to me. Skills are tools. Classical education is much more than a rigorous education- ultimately it is about educating the heart and mind of the child and tying everything together so that the child knows what it is to be human and how he relates to God. I don't push academics early because I don't feel it is academically appropriate and I don't want my boys to hate learning. In the early years we concentrate mostly on nursery rhymes, fairy tales and good literature, lots of nature walks and fun exposure to Latin. My oldest is 16 and I have changed a lot through the years in how I am educating my children. This is the place I have arrived at and it seems right and makes the most sense. I am starting to see some fruits, too.

Early skills are also not classical in any historical sense of the word, starting school at age five or sooner is a very modern innovation.

[Erin]

I agree.

Frankly, I don't see "classical" as a relevant way to educate younger elementary kids. (Sorry SWB!)  

In my mind, early childhood education is best approached via Montessori or something similar…possibly CM.  

 

For my part, "classical" shouldn't really kick in until about 3rd or 4th grades/9&10 years old.  Before that it's not really age-appropriate for most kids.  

Historically, kids weren't sent off to tutors/teachers until this age...

 

 

[MomintheMountains]

I agree Erin. The "rigor" doesn't kick in here until 5th grade. K-3rd for us is what I described in my prior post and 4th is a transitional year, focusing on self discipline and good study habits. We do academic lessons in k-3rd, but they are short and CM-ish.

[MistiDelaney]

Hmm, this is a fascinating question.  I have never tried to put it into words before, though I feel like "I know it when I see it".

 

Of course, as I have said elsewhere, for me, these terms are mostly "shorthand" to me, so I am quite comfortable with other people have related but different definitions.

 

Let's see.  I think I agree that "Classical education" refers really to the education of older children and adolescence.  Although SWB's book grabbed me hard when I read it when my Caboose Boy was about two, we actually started with something a lot for CM (endless stories - and mostly only stories) about every topic that a more "Classical" child might study. We are just now, as he enters what would be his sixth grade year, to really buckle down with something that would look more classical to more people.

 

To me, Classical education really means a deeper education and a broader education. Learning more and more deeply than is expected to mainstream children today. 

 

We have approached history differently than most.  We started at four years old exploring dinosaurs with stories, picture books, movies, and more.  At five, we learned about proto-humans and paleolithic people.  Again, we used books, stories, movies, and added some experiments.  At six, we discussed the neolithic using everything at hand. At seven, we learned about Mesopotamia.  We added more challenging material, including a deeper look at religion as Mesopotamian civilizations experienced it. At eight, we explored Egypt going into far more depth than we had previous periods.  At nine it was Greece. At ten and eleven, we have been studying Rome and are about to get into the Middle Ages.  We have made side trips to look into other civilizations of the period, like the Americas, Asia, etc. 

 

My thought on why this makes sense is partly that having a broad picture of the march of history, with as much depth as he is capable of in the moment means that we will have a clear picture of how we come to be where we are now.  He can always go back and study other periods if he is interested, but we know so much more about modern periods and it is so much more important to being a good citizen to understand more recent periods deeply.

He learned his rote arithmatic from the age of four or so, going more deeply as time has passed.  He thinks he is behind, starting pre-algebra at 11.  I don't know whether he is, so we are using the TTB placement tests to assess. (I know they tend to expect less than some programs, but I don't want to have him discouraged going in to mathematics. He's a very competative lad and while he is willing to do the work to "be ahead", if he thinks he is too far behind...)

 

Rather than study Latin per se at earlier ages, we used English from the Roots Up. Since Dad is the at home parent and very resistant to Latin, that may be as far as we go.  :(  But at least he gets some of the benefit.

 

In addition to endless stories about history, we also teach values through literature. We are not Christian, but we do use Victorian literature to teach about the value of honour, honesty, hard work, gumption, etc.  We just discuss the religion as one motivator and the value of those values beyond the religious.

 

We study grammar and spelling because in the end they make the system and pattern more evident and remove the mystery of that part of communication and we study composition because knowledge withoutthe ability to communicate is pretty much useless.

 

I think I'm babbling...I'll stop now.  :p

 

 

 

 

 

[Erin]

 

 

To me, Classical education really means a deeper education and a broader education. Learning more and more deeply than is expected to mainstream children today.

This is my thought as well.  

​Classical means learning to think and question more than anything (probably why logic is so important).  

 

Personally, I was raised by a teacher and a lawyer, consequently my home-life was pretty classical.  We were taught to always look for flaws in logic, question why things were the way they were, know and consider root words/vocabulary, understand what events lead to other events, and so on.  

Even though I was public schooled, my education was ultimately determined by my parents, not my school system.  Homeschooling just makes that easier...

[Coco_Clark]

What does Classical Education mean to you?

 

To ME, classical education (in the grammar years, since that's where WE are, and also to adress previous comments) is about A. Building A Solid Foundation. That means, yes, addressing grammar quite "early". It means focusing heavily on arithmetic facts. It means broad exposure (I think the depth of classical studies comes later, in logic/rhetoric) in history, science, and the arts in order to create the "pegs" SWB talks about. It is about getting kids prepared to enter the logic stage, so they can spend those years making connections. In order to make connections they need things to connect.

 

It also means B. Exposure to Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. The idea that education is teaching children to "enjoy the things we ought and to hate the things we ought" has been repeated from Plato, to Aristotle, to the Bible, to Augustine, to Lewis, to Andrew Kern. So filling our home, our life, and our minds with those things worthy of contemplation is perhaps even my greatest goal. What is familiar is what is loved. What is seen is what is imitated.

[Wind-in-my-hair]

I think what you've written about your feelings toward your chosen mode of education is lovely. But charlotte mason did teach Latin, and you'd have to be working with a very narrow definition of "logic" to think her students didn't teach/learn it (she also taught teachers). So, just stick with what works for you without worrying about different ways of doing it. Its awesome to homeschool with a plan that resonates with you so completely.

 

I apologize for making a false comparison between two very broadly defined homeschool methods. 

 

What really prompted me to post is because it does help to have a sort of "home base" or philosophical predisposition, that allows you to figure out what to teach, when, and how. I am always second-guessing myself, liable to swing into a totally different approach and abandon the progress we have made up to this point, if I do not gently remind myself what principles I would be giving up if I made a drastic change. Changing approaches can often mean having to start all over, with a different set of expectations for skills development.

[Crimson Wife]

To me, classical education is about introducing the student to what Mortimer J. Adler called "the Great Conversation". It focuses on the greatest achievements of Western Civilization in literature, philosophy, drama, art, music, etc.

 

Historically, that involved studying classical languages in order to read texts in the original Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc. but today the student may or may not do that. Our HS goes more science & math heavy than a traditional liberal arts education, and as a result, we have chosen to place less emphasis on classical languages.

[Mrs Twain]

PA-Mom's question is a fine one to ask, and it will be interesting to hear the various answers as to what Classical education is.

 

PA-Mom's ideas are very much in line with evidence. If you read The Knowledge Deficit (Hirsch), you will see that acquiring content early is most beneficial. Children who begin acquiring content later fall behind the first group, falling farther behind the later they start at an exponential rate, insurmountble at some point.

 

Willingham's book called Why Don't Students Like School is the other book I have found most helpful in understanding the evidence about educational philosophies and practical applications of the evidence.

[Wind-in-my-hair]

I was prompted into writing this post because I am also at a vulnerable stage in homeschooling, liable to judge our success by outsider terms. I feel I need to identify what those different schools of thought mean to me, so I can move into making my own standard of success. As I have shared, I have the sincere desire to build skills that will lead to strong organizational thinking and study ethic. I know that there is more than one way to get there, but I have not yet fully solidified how I want to get there. I know its more than academics, that it is both heart and mind exposure to ideas, and character-building, that lead to what I want for my kids. There is so, so much out there. I need to take several steps back, I am finding. Do I keep on training my child in reading and writing skills the way we have been, and treat each skill as a distinct subject at this stage? Or do I go a more interdisciplinary route? For example, in a CM approach spelling may be taught as part of phonics instruction or penmanship practice on spelling words. Do I believe children should do work that pushes them out of their comfort zone, making mistakes as part of the process, or should I really make sure that my child is working right on level, and require that he do his work perfectly? How I believe skills should be taught really determines the rest of the whole curricula that I use. So it is no small question to ponder. 

[Crimson Wife]

Saying this gently, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The things you are worrying about (what grade to start the study of grammar, using a separate spelling program vs. integrating it with copywork, etc.) are not all that important when it comes to choosing an overall educational philosophy.

 

I would encourage you to read this: http://www.susancanthony.com/ws/_pdf/phlhdn.pdf

 

Classical HSing falls under the "perennialism" philosophy.

[Farrar]

Wanted to disagree with two statements...

 

Another major plus is that Classical education keeps the child's skills mostly evenly developed, so that if my child must re-enter school, he will likely do so with ease. This is a big plus because we are re-evaluating our homeschool decision year-by-year, and would want our son to be at or above his grade level as it corresponds to private school in our area. 

 

Honestly, I think that if one follows most of the programs labeled as "Classical" for writing instruction they won't find this to be true in elementary schools these days. Children in most public elementary schools and many private schools are expected to produce a large volume of original writing at a pretty young age, which is not a skill that is taught in WWE or many other classical writing approaches. If you happen to have a private school following a classical model, of course, then that's a different question.

 

I like what you wrote. It is better to start academic teaching early than late according to the evidence.

Also in terms of the best evidence, I would add that content is equally important as skills for a foundation in elementary and middle school years.

 

Totally agreed about content and its importance, but I think the jury's still out on academic skills being pushed early. There are many studies that show children who are taught reading early do not have appreciably better reading skills by the end of elementary but they are more likely to dislike reading. 

[Space station]

Part of what makes a classical education to me is the use of literature from all time periods to give a cultural reference and context for our society. The current move away from all but modern literature will result in a generation that cannot understand the cultural references made in the existing lexicon.

[Farrar]

My introduction to classical learning really came through Mortimer Adler when I was in high school and I think, at the root, that's still why classical is an influence in my thinking about education. I don't ascribe to a focus solely on Western culture, but I do believe in the great conversation and preparing students to be thinkers by being able to read and analyze at a high level. So for me the heart of classical is really about preparing students to move through Bloom's taxonomy from simple rote understanding to application and eventually evaluation.

 

I think there are some different paths to get there...  obviously classical has also become a methodology or at least associated with various methods for "getting there" so to speak, but there are so many permutations of what that means and people on this board who know way more about some of the various varieties and writers have spent some time picking apart and discussing what is and is not classical on a level that I don't feel I can fully participate in.

[Wind-in-my-hair]

To answer my own question, I do think keeping each skill a separate subject with its own period to teach, and its own sequence to be accountable for following, is how I know if something needs to change. I would want to follow a block schedule with A and B days, with skills of priority being done daily, and skills that come next as well as content being done eod. The skills of priority are phonics, math (though we still need a math curriculum), and penmanship. EOD I want to do composition, grammar, Spelling Workout, and (will be starting at some point) History, Art, and Science. I may change this routine so that composition and history are given more priority than science and art, but for now, I know those are not my main focus. In this approach, once phonics is mastered, spelling and then grammar take its place in priority. To me, Classical education is about placing the most priority on the subjects most fundamental to future learning, and that is the main reason I think homeschooling this way could work well for us. 

 

On the other hand, there can be alot of enjoyment in focusing on literature and blending subjects through various literary forms. CM does a great job in presenting a literary feast for young minds. The less-stress over individual skills might encourage a child to be more receptive to all learning, and hence develop a better outlook and study ethic. This might be good for children who are natural late-bloomers, although I do think there is a risk of losing a child along the way if they happen to not enjoy the literary feast. I could see us homeschooling in this manner as long as we found a good math program that would follow its own scope and sequence and as long as reading and writing skills were coming along nicely. I think the key to making CM a success is being very thoughtful and committed about choosing the right living books, and drawing your child in through discussion, while keeping skills coming along. Since young children love to be drawn in to a good book, and love to learn when they don't feel pressure, this approach could work for us as well, but it would mean doing less of what we started.

 

 

 

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

A focus on the 3R's in the primary grades is fine, but again, that's not what choosing an educational philosophy is about. I think you need to take a step back and look at the big picture. The forest, not the trees.

[8filltheheart]

I think you are asking questions more about eduational methodologies and general educational philosophies thanhow does one define classical education (which is its own can of worms b/c ask 100 people and you will probably get ~70 different answers and small areas of overlap. Nothing in your OP really falls under the umbrella of my personal definition of classical ed. ;) And how I define it is rather pointless b/c it means nothing in the scheme of things b/c I do not believe it is really possible to offer an authentic classical education at home. :P)

 

Mrs. Twain and I have opposing views on the crucial role of early education. I am also familiar with research that does not support the idea that focusing on knowlegdge/content at a young age produces stronger students and kids focusing on content later fall behind. (not to mention my own home lab of kids who don't fit the research results that Mrs. Twain puts forth b/c they do not focus on content prior to 3rd grade and yet my older kids are academically successful adults with the next 2 coming up through the ranks being equally strong students.)

 

What is most valuable is finding an educational approach that you can embrace and progress through daily with conviction that your children are receiving a great education. There are LOTS of different paths to that end, not just one. The one that fits your personality and teaching style and best enables your children to thrive in academic success is the path that matters.

 

If I had to take a school in a box or a Core Knowledge path with my kids, I would go nuts. Their path would not be one of success b/c they would not have a happy productive mother or teacher. Nor can I deal with a project/lab-based approach. I would be completely overwhelmed by the constant hands-on requirements. Equally, the design my own, enjoy the scenic route approach that I thrive in would cause other teachers to wilt. Embrace your strengths, know your weaknesses, and focus on the end goal and find the merging point--that is what leads to successful homeschooling.

[HS Mom in NC]

Classical Education began thousands of years ago.  It has been practiced, modified and contributed to constantly from all corners of the globe. Because of that, Classical Education is an extremely broad term that has many subcategories because of has many different schools of thought, different goals, different teaching techniques, different content, different approaches, etc.  So, what it means to me is a conversation I can only have if we identify some sort of subcategory. 

In designing an overview of homeschooling approaches for newbies, this is a portion of the workshop (I cover a total of 8 different approaches.) I give them related to Classical Education in the American homeschooling community. It's worth noting that  Living Books is separate because it can be done in a Classical way or people can choose to do it in a way that isn't Classical.  Circe Institute isn't a perfect fit under Trivium, but this is a bird's eye view, not an in depth comparison/contrast on different educational philosophy. Charlotte Mason is listed under Living book because she's she makes a great argument for using them and she herself is a form of Classical Education.  These are just the realities of educational philosophy discussions. There aren't any neat, tidy compartments and absolutes. That's why I lump somethings very broadly that could be separated, but it's not useful in a conversation with people who have little or no background knowledge. The idea is to get them to understand the lay of the land and look into things more in depth on their own.

 

===Living Books Approach ===

Only the best literature and writings on each subject are used.  Think of it this way, instead of reading from a distilled over simplified textbook on the Civil War, these parents have their students read several of the books about the Civil War that an author of a textbook would read preparing to write the textbook.  Now, think of doing that for Science, History, Economics, Literature, Art, etc.  This crowd is also known for

nature studies, narration, and dictation.

 

Heart of Dakota 

Charlotte Mason (also a form a Classical Education.)

Karen Andreola

My Father’s World

Sonlight

Greenleaf Press

All Through the Ages

Robinson’s Curriculum

 

 

===Classical Education===

Classical education has at least three distinct camps. They can be integrated as much as the parent prefers. They all have a strong preference for first source materials and use primarily Western Classics (Also called the Western Canon, or the Common Book of the Western World.) Some can include the study of "dead" languages (Hebrew, Classical or Biblical Greek, and Latin) although some are content with good English translations of Classic works while others opt for studies of Latin and Greek Roots in English.

 

Group A

 

 Characterized by the Trivium.  The 3 stages have many terms: 

 

1. Stage 1 Grammar (facts)
2. Stage 2 Logic (cause and effect) All stages of formal Logic inductive, deductive, material, etc. 
3. Stage 3 Rhetoric (application and persuasion) Formal argumentation is studied.

 

Formal Logic and Rhetoric are studied specifically. History is usually studied chronologically. Logic is studied formally, and Science is studied with experimentation, biographies, and original writings of the greatest minds. Classic works from masters throughout Western Civilization in all eras are studied. Some integrate History, Geography, Science and Literature into a more unit study approach.

 

Think Dorothy Sayers.

 

Tapestry of Grace

Classical Conversations

Memoria Press

Veritas Press

Teaching the Trivium

The Well Trained Mind

The Circe Institute (not a perfect fit under Trivium, but Classical)

 

Group B

 

Characterized by the Mentor Model and sometimes called a "Statesmen" education. Morals, virtue, and character are emphasized above all.

 

1. In the early years children are allowed to follow their interests and learn good moral character while developing a strong work ethic.
2. The middle years are when the parent begins inspiring students by reading classic works by the best minds on the subjects and entering into apprenticeship situations with masters of certain skills. 
3. The later years the students are mentored in apprenticeships in entrepreneurial situations for their future leadership roles and professional pursuits.

 

Think Thomas Jefferson.

 

A Thomas Jefferson education by DeMille

A Thomas Jefferson Companion

 

Group C

 

 Also known as the Principle Approach.  This is a method often attributed to how many of the Founders were educated.

 

1. Research the topic by looking up ideas

 

a. first source materials (original writings, documents, autobiographies, first hand historical accounts, etc.)

 

b. look up terms in dictionary (keeping in mind dictionaries that are specific to the era)

 

c. look up terms in your sacred writings or other sources related to your beliefs (Christians-Bible)

 

1. Reason through the material looking for the underlying principles.

 

1. Relate the information you have found through research and reason and apply it to your life.

 

1. Record your findings in a logical, systematic, and persuasive format.

 

Think James Madison.

 

www.principleapproach.org

[Wind-in-my-hair]

Saying this gently, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The things you are worrying about (what grade to start the study of grammar, using a separate spelling program vs. integrating it with copywork, etc.) are not all that important when it comes to choosing an overall educational philosophy.

 

I would encourage you to read this: http://www.susancanthony.com/ws/_pdf/phlhdn.pdf

 

Classical HSing falls under the "perennialism" philosophy.

Viewed that way, it does show that your end-goal can be attained using not just a particular method, because your end goal is more abstract, based on values and "why" rather than methods or "how." Is my goal merely to pass on knowledge? I would like to pass on core knowledge, but that isn't necessarily the measure of success. I would want my child to be a great problem solver, but that isn't the end-in-itself. So I can see what you mean, how I am missing the forest for the trees. I will have to think about this. Thanks for the resource. 

[Wind-in-my-hair]

What is most valuable is finding an educational approach that you can embrace and progress through daily with conviction that your children are receiving a great education. There are LOTS of different paths to that end, not just one. The one that fits your personality and teaching style and best enables your children to thrive in academic success is the path that matters.

 

If I had to take a school in a box or a Core Knowledge path with my kids, I would go nuts. Their path would not be one of success b/c they would not have a happy productive mother or teacher. Nor can I deal with a project/lab-based approach. I would be completely overwhelmed by the constant hands-on requirements. Equally, the design my own, enjoy the scenic route approach that I thrive in would cause other teachers to wilt. Embrace your strengths, know your weaknesses, and focus on the end goal and find the merging point--that is what leads to successful homeschooling.

 

This is very wise. Thanks for sharing. 

[Coco_Clark]

I agree v forest and trees.

 

It seems after your replies that you are more interested in hashing out methods than methodologies. One most certainly leads to the other but I think it is more useful to say, "which forest will fit my family and our unique goals?" and then inspect the trees than it is to say, "which trees do I want?" and then try to figure out which forest will have those.

 

One you HAVE your forest of course you start doing construction to make it fit. But starting with trees isn't going to result in a unified forest. (Am I pushing this visual too far yet?)

 

But maybe that's me. I'm very whole to parts.

[Mrs. A]

Viewed that way, it does show that your end-goal can be attained using not just a particular method, because your end goal is more abstract, based on values and "why" rather than methods or "how." Is my goal merely to pass on knowledge? I would like to pass on core knowledge, but that isn't necessarily the measure of success. I would want my child to be a great problem solver, but that isn't the end-in-itself. So I can see what you mean, how I am missing the forest for the trees. I will have to think about this. Thanks for the resource. 

 

 

I think it's very important to think about the "why" because that informs the "how". My guiding question as I consider what curriculum to use or to reject is "does this move me toward my goal or away from it?". Then I have to ask how or why said curriculum does or doesn't move me in that direction. I also ask the same question when I consider "how" I'm using whatever I've chosen. Because a curriculum can be fabulous and yet be used in such a way that it produces less than fabulous results of I'm not prepared to adjust in order to teach the students I have in front of me. 

 

I won't answer the original question because I am not sure a label fits what I want for my children, but I will say that a CM education is pretty darn rigorous if you go off of what she actually said rather than what other people say about what she said. 

[73349]

To me, classical education is cultivating deep understanding, discernment, and commitment to doing right. It's rigorous at the right time, without hurrying and anxiously flitting about, and without being distracted by the shiny and the noisy. It is rooted in conversations about great ideas. It omits busywork and is judicious about closed-ended questions.

It's not a particular curriculum or publisher. It neither stuffs the child nor starves him/her, but nourishes. It is neither early nor late, but on time. :)

[ScoutTN]

Have you read the Circe threads?! ;)

[Wind-in-my-hair]

The reason I bought TWTM is because I wanted to learn more about the trivium approach to education. I had been reading a book titled The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric by Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.S, PhD and edited by Marguertie McGlinn (Paul Dry Books, 2002). It's a college-level textbook in the skills of knowledge acquisition (logic) and expression (grammar and rhetoric). Interestingly, the author defines logic as the art that preceded the need for grammar, for ordering ideas comes before giving them expression in language. Mastery of logic and grammar then produces a mind capable of argument, for that individual knows how to discern and defend the right, or correct, from the wrong, or fallacious. 

 

This trivium really sounds like it can be accomplished by means other than following the trivium approach to education. "Grammar" being introduced in fourth grade and "logic" being emphasized in the primary grades (through gentle lessons in character and noble ideas in literature, and being asked to give thoughtful responses) does make sense, although it kind of reverses what I internalized in reading the WTM. Please, do not feel that I am trying to drive a wedge between different types of classical approaches. I am just thinking out loud for the sake of wrapping my head around my goals and my methods. 

 

ETA: Or it would seem that both logic and grammar are done informally in the primary years, through narrations and lots of reading, then both formal logic and grammar are done in the middle grades. I think that makes things clearer in my mind. Perhaps I'd best stop thinking about the early elementary grades as "grammar" and remind myself that that is just a metaphor.

[Mrs Twain]

When you are reading about various homeschool philosophies and methods, keep in mind that many things said are either not supported by evidence or actually contrary to evidence.  Just because someone writes a book about his or her unique approach and many people follow it doesn't make it accurate or effective.

 

An example is the commonly promoted method of teaching children based on each one's individual learning style.  

"Learning Styles Don't Exist"

 

[8filltheheart]

The reason I bought TWTM is because I wanted to learn more about the trivium approach to education. I had been reading a book titled The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric by Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.S, PhD and edited by Marguertie McGlinn (Paul Dry Books, 2002). It's a college-level textbook in the skills of knowledge acquisition (logic) and expression (grammar and rhetoric). Interestingly, the author defines logic as the art that preceded the need for grammar, for ordering ideas comes before giving them expression in language. Mastery of logic and grammar then produces a mind capable of argument, for that individual knows how to discern and defend the right, or correct, from the wrong, or fallacious.

 

This trivium really sounds like it can be accomplished by means other than following the trivium approach to education. "Grammar" being introduced in fourth grade and "logic" being emphasized in the primary grades (through gentle lessons in character and noble ideas in literature, and being asked to give thoughtful responses) does make sense, although it kind of reverses what I internalized in reading the WTM. Please, do not feel that I am trying to drive a wedge between different types of classical approaches. I am just thinking out loud for the sake of wrapping my head around my goals and my methods.

 

ETA: Or it would seem that both logic and grammar are done informally in the primary years, through narrations and lots of reading, then both formal logic and grammar are done in the middle grades. I think that makes things clearer in my mind. Perhaps I'd best stop thinking about the early elementary grades as "grammar" and remind myself that that is just a metaphor.

I own and have read Sister Miriam Joseph's book as well. What you are seeing is why I stated earlier that nothing you described in your OP met my definition of classical ed. The Trivium is written in terms of how classical was originally defined. Grammar is a subject. Logic is a subject. The trivium was understood as subjects. They were not a division of ages and stages.

[HS Mom in NC]

Here's a very simplified and bare bones explanation as the terms as stages in The Trivium. Of course, as I've pointed out upthread there will be plenty of variations on the theme and different schools of thought.  Always keep that in mind.

 

Grammar has 2 very different meanings.  Grammar, as the first stage of The Trivium, isn't about the structure of the English language.  It means the facts stage.  Who, what, when and where.  It includes memorization of foundational facts type information.  Yes, some people introduce the Grammar of the English language as a separated subject in this stage, but some do it in the Logic stage which comes next. Why?  Because the stages are developmental.   Some as aspects of the grammar of the English language are very abstract ideas and many children do better waiting until they're older to study them. 

 

Logic has 2 very different meanings. The Logic Stage means cause and effect.  It's the how. Going over the same content previously covered in the Grammar stage, but focusing on the cause and effect and inter relatedness of events, ideas and people.  This may or may not include the actual study of Formal Logic as a subject as may children need to wait until the Rhetoric stage to understand some very abstract Logic. Some very simple introductory Formal Logic concepts as a separate subject can be introduced in the Grammar Stage. 

 

Rhetoric stage is about application and persuasion in The Trivium.  It's the why and therefore. (You should know few TWTM boardies do this stage.) It's about visiting the same content covered in the Grammar and Logic Stages (facts and cause and effect) and learning the life lessons and big ideas and putting those into persuasive arguments.  So, this stage is very idea and values focused and argumentation is covered at the highest levels.

 

Imagine the content is Ancient Greece.  The first time through at the child is learning about the geography, the major people and events in Greek History, who they fought, what they ate, their modes of transport, who did what, etc.   The second time through they learn cause and effect about how Hellenization was transported across the ancient world  and the effect it had on the world.  Then they revisit Ancient Greece a third time and learn it's philosophies, its greatest ideas and its greatest Greeks. The learn the cautionary lessons of history. Then they argue what humanity should take away from it for the better and avoid the worst.  They argue like the best Greeks did using their techniques and Formal Logic structure in formal argumentation.

[8filltheheart]

Here's a very simplified and bare bones explanation as the terms as stages in The Trivium. Of course, as I've pointed out upthread there will be plenty of variations on the theme and different schools of thought.  Always keep that in mind.

 

Grammar has 2 very different meanings.  Grammar, as the first stage of The Trivium, isn't about the structure of the English language.  It means the facts stage.  Who, what, when and where.  It includes memorization of foundational facts type information.  Yes, some people introduce the Grammar of the English language as a separated subject in this stage, but some do it in the Logic stage which comes next. Why?  Because the stages are developmental.   Some as aspects of the grammar of the English language are very abstract ideas and many children do better waiting until they're older to study them. 

 

Logic has 2 very different meanings. The Logic Stage means cause and effect.  It's the how. Going over the same content previously covered in the Grammar stage, but focusing on the cause and effect and inter relatedness of events, ideas and people.  This may or may not include the actual study of Formal Logic as a subject as may children need to wait until the Rhetoric stage to understand some very abstract Logic. Some very simple introductory Formal Logic concepts as a separate subject can be introduced in the Grammar Stage. 

 

Rhetoric stage is about application and persuasion in The Trivium.  It's the why and therefore. (You should know few TWTM boardies do this stage.) It's about visiting the same content covered in the Grammar and Logic Stages (facts and cause and effect) and learning the life lessons and big ideas and putting those into persuasive arguments.  So, this stage is very idea and values focused and argumentation is covered at the highest levels.

 

Imagine the content is Ancient Greece.  The first time through at the child is learning about the geography, the major people and events in Greek History, who they fought, what they ate, their modes of transport, who did what, etc.   The second time through they learn cause and effect about how Hellenization was transported across the ancient world  and the effect it had on the world.  Then they revisit Ancient Greece a third time and learn it's philosophies, its greatest ideas and its greatest Greeks. The learn the cautionary lessons of history. Then they argue what humanity should take away from it for the better and avoid the worst.  They argue like the best Greeks did using their techniques and Formal Logic structure in formal argumentation.

 

What you have presented is the neo-classical presentation of classical education.   What the OP was discussing in terms of Sister Miriam Joseph's book, The Trivium, is not at all represented by your description.   The Trivium covers grammar, logic, and rhetoric as subjects.

I think it is also helpful to define Classical Education by talking about what Classical Education isn't. It isn't the be-all and end-all, silver bullet for all kids.  It isn't necessarily the most rigorous or only way to do things.  Perhaps most importantly, it isn't an all or nothing approach.  I don't understand how it is relevant for math:  No one teaches three complete passes through math, from counting to calculus in each of the three stages, like many classical programs recommend for history.  Perhaps one could say that the grammar of math is memorizing all the facts, the logic would be applying them to do word problems, and rhetoric would be ???.  But no one teaches that way:  word problems are mixed in from the beginning.  And the history of math doesn't need to be taught, even to understand math at the highest level.  No student really needs to read Euclid or Newton to do well in math.

 

That being said, I use many Classical techniques, especially in History and English, where, for now, they seem to be a good fit here. But, I do so with my eyes open.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think it is also helpful to define Classical Education by talking about what Classical Education isn't. It isn't the be-all and end-all, silver bullet for all kids.  It isn't necessarily the most rigorous or only way to do things.  Perhaps most importantly, it isn't an all or nothing approach.  I don't understand how it is relevant for math:  No one teaches three complete passes through math, from counting to calculus in each of the three stages, like many classical programs recommend for history.  Perhaps one could say that the grammar of math is memorizing all the facts, the logic would be applying them to do word problems, and rhetoric would be ???.  But no one teaches that way:  word problems are mixed in from the beginning.  And the history of math doesn't need to be taught, even to understand math at the highest level.  No student really needs to read Euclid or Newton to do well in math.

 

That being said, I use many Classical techniques, especially in History and English, where, for now, they seem to be a good fit here. But, I do so with my eyes open.

 

When it comes to math the Classical discussion usually focuses on parts to whole vs. whole to parts, which is technique oriented like Socratic questioning would be. Not everything is appicable to every subject and assignment. However, the highest maths can get into epistemology and philosophy but not usually at a high school level.  

[HS Mom in NC]

What you have presented is the neo-classical presentation of classical education.   What the OP was discussing in terms of Sister Miriam Joseph's book, The Trivium, is not at all represented by your description.   The Trivium covers grammar, logic, and rhetoric as subjects.

 

But she did mention TWTM in her posts too, so my description was applicable in that context because it was clear from her earlier posts that she is unfamiliar with the wide range of schools of thought...and this is TWTM boards after all.

 

[HelenNotOfTroy]

I don't know what classical education means to me. I found that what I read in TWTM resonated with me and it was the first thing I read about homeschooling or classical education. I have since read many other things. I have a preference for taking what works for me from a variety of things and putting something together piecemeal rather than ascribing to anything as is, but I am using many of the Peace Hill Press materials with my son. I know that he would be on target for math, ahead for reading, and behind for writing if I put him into public school. His biggest problems would be behavioral, he could catch up easily on academics if he wanted to.

 

As far as content, you always have content. You just have to choose what content you want in your child's life or just accept whatever appeals to him from what crosses his path.

[8filltheheart]

I think it is also helpful to define Classical Education by talking about what Classical Education isn't. It isn't the be-all and end-all, silver bullet for all kids.  It isn't necessarily the most rigorous or only way to do things.  Perhaps most importantly, it isn't an all or nothing approach.  I don't understand how it is relevant for math:  No one teaches three complete passes through math, from counting to calculus in each of the three stages, like many classical programs recommend for history.  Perhaps one could say that the grammar of math is memorizing all the facts, the logic would be applying them to do word problems, and rhetoric would be ???.  But no one teaches that way:  word problems are mixed in from the beginning.  And the history of math doesn't need to be taught, even to understand math at the highest level.  No student really needs to read Euclid or Newton to do well in math.

 

That being said, I use many Classical techniques, especially in History and English, where, for now, they seem to be a good fit here. But, I do so with my eyes open.

 

This is why these conversations are so non-productive bc there is absolutely no consensus as to what the word "classical" means. As a term, term classical has been coopted to mean so many things that it no longer holds any real value for discussion.   It is also why I posted earlier that I wouldn't bother posting my understanding of what classical ed is.   In terms of what it isn't, from my POV, just about everything posted in this thread is what it isn't.   :lol:  

 

For the OP, who is probably confused, what you read in Sister's book is the classic understanding of classical education. ;) It used to be that classical education referred to the trivium and quadrivium.   The trivium and quadrivium composed the 7 liberal arts.   Classical education was not about ages.  It was not about stages.  It was not about rotations through content.   Here are some explanations from the Catholic Encyclopedia originally published in 1904 (I think that is the publication date.  It is definitely late 19th century/early 20th century.)

 

 

The traditional "liberal arts" derived from the Romano-Hellenic schools, were seven in number. They were made up of the trivium, embracing grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, and the quadrivium, or music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. The trivium may be said to have corresponded to the Arts studies proper in the modern college course, and the quadrivium to the science studies. While the medieval universities held to the traditional number of the liberal arts, they did so only in a theoretical way. New subjects were at times introduced into the curriculum, and classified as belonging to one or other of the seven arts. The instruction given under the several arts was, quantitatively as well as qualitatively, very unequal. The trivium generally formed the body of the Arts curriculum, especially up to the B.A. degree. After that, more or less of the quadrivium was given, together with advanced courses covering the ground of the trivium. Grammar was a wide term. Theoretically, it included the study of the whole Latin language and literature. Rhetoric was the art of expression, both in writing and speaking. It corresponded to what we should now call, in a broad sense, oratory. Dialectic was the study of philosophy, including logic, metaphysics, and ethics. 

 

Among the Romans grammar and rhetoric were the first to obtain a firm foothold; culture was by them identified with eloquence, as the art of speaking and the mastery of the spoken word based upon a manifold knowledge of things. In his "Institutiones Oratoriae" Quintilian, the first professor eloquentiae at Rome in Vespasian's time, begins his instruction with grammar, or, to speak precisely, with Latin and Greek Grammar, proceeds to mathematics and music, and concludes with rhetoric, which comprises not only elocution and a knowledge of literature, but also logical â€” in other words dialectical â€” instruction.

 

 

Since there is no longer a consensus as to what it means, it is like nailing jello to a wall.   :confused1:

[wallingjan]

How I believe skills should be taught really determines the rest of the whole curricula that I use. So it is no small question to ponder.

I won't speak to how I define classical education because I'm intentionally trying not to label things right now.

 

I did want to mention that one of the things I've learned as continue on our journey is that a quality education seems to depend more on how my children learn than on how I teach it. The challenge is in figuring out what will ignite their passion to learn and teaching to their style. And it's not the same for every child. That would've saved me money ;)

[Coco_Clark]

I won't speak to how I define classical education because I'm intentionally trying not to label things right now.

 

I did want to mention that one of the things I've learned as continue on our journey is that a quality education seems to depend more on how my children learn than on how I teach it. The challenge is in figuring out what will ignite their passion to learn and teaching to their style. And it's not the same for every child. That would've saved me money ;)

See, I feel like I'm learning that a quality education has a lot more to do with how I teach than how they learn. When I was in school (for an education degree) I feel like there was a lot of wasted breath on "learning styles" that I've never been able to implement. I'm getting a lot more traction spending my time perfecting my teaching techniques, not to mention self-educating on whatever topics I'm teaching.

 

All types, man. It never fails.

[ElizaG]

I own and have read Sister Miriam Joseph's book as well. What you are seeing is why I stated earlier that nothing you described in your OP met my definition of classical ed. The Trivium is written in terms of how classical was originally defined. Grammar is a subject. Logic is a subject. The trivium was understood as subjects. They were not a division of ages and stages.

 

 

For the OP, who is probably confused, what you read in Sister's book is the classic understanding of classical education.  ;) It used to be that classical education referred to the trivium and quadrivium.   The trivium and quadrivium composed the 7 liberal arts.   Classical education was not about ages.  It was not about stages.  It was not about rotations through content.   Here are some explanations from the Catholic Encyclopedia originally published in 1904 (I think that is the publication date.  It is definitely late 19th century/early 20th century.)

 

Well, if you want to get precise and historical, the seven arts of the trivium and quadrivium, as taught in the medieval universities, aren't equivalent to "classical education" either.   I've posted references about this here in the past, and tried writing something on the same lines just now, but it got eaten (maybe just as well).  There's someone at the Talk page for Wikipedia's Classical Education Movement article who goes into more detail about this -- and is also more blunt than I would have been.  The post is at 02:04, 18 November 2011.

 

Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article is on the subject of "Liberal Arts" -- a general term that covers both the classical and the medieval approaches.  

 

By the way, Sister Miriam Joseph was a convert and had no personal experience of classical education, Catholic or otherwise.   She learned about the trivium after hearing a talk by Mortimer Adler in the 1930s, and went on to study with him to develop a plan for implementing it at St. Mary's College in Indiana.  

 

Reference to Adler's talk, from biography of Sr. Madeleva, CSC (Google Books, might not be viewable to everyone)

What Are the Liberal Arts? -- Memoria Press

 

Like Dorothy Sayers' ideas, Adler's were based on a modern interpretation of the medieval curriculum -- which, even to start with, didn't have much resemblance to the course of studies in Christian classical schools in the previous 500 years.  

 

So Sister Miriam Joseph still seems to me to be more "neo-classical" than traditional.   (This is not meant as a put-down, just a clarification.)

[8filltheheart]

Well, if you want to get precise and historical, the seven arts of the trivium and quadrivium, as taught in the medieval universities, aren't equivalent to "classical education" either. I've posted references about this here in the past, and tried writing something on the same lines just now, but it got eaten (maybe just as well). There's someone at the Talk page for Wikipedia's Classical Education Movement article who goes into more detail about this -- and is also more blunt than I would have been. The post is at 02:04, 18 November 2011.

 

Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article is on the subject of "Liberal Arts" -- a general term that covers both the classical and the medieval approaches.

 

By the way, Sister Miriam Joseph was a convert, and had no personal experience of classical education, Catholic or otherwise. She learned about the trivium after hearing a talk by Mortimer Adler in the 1930s, and went on to study with him to develop a plan for implementing it at St. Mary's College in Indiana.

 

Reference to Adler's talk, from biography of Sr. Madeleva, CSC (Google Books, might not be viewable to everyone)

What Are the Liberal Arts? -- Memoria Press

 

Like Dorothy Sayers' ideas, Adler's were based on a modern interpretation of the medieval curriculum -- which, even to start with, didn't have much resemblance to the course of studies in Christian classical schools in the previous 500 years.

 

So Sister Miriam Joseph still seems to me to be more "neo-classical" than traditional. (This is not meant as a put-down, just a clarification.)

Interesting. Her book is more along the lines of what I consider classical than any modern neo-classical work I have read. But, I have really found these conversations are pointless b/c there are so many variations and meanings that the word is becoming meaningless other than being a synonym for "rigorous education" which I don't believe was ever an "original definition."

 

So, apparently Sister MJ is just more jello. :) Her book is definitely not a favorite, though.

[Kathie in VA]

To me classical education differs from modern education in many ways.

 

But for me I liked the idea of the Trivium. The idea of the basic stages makes sense to me. I don't think of them as exclusive though. I prefer to think of say the Grammar stage as when you focus on the basic facts in all your subjects....but this doesn't discount some logic (ie connecting some ideas like what is done in math with basic word problems or talking about why some things happened). Younger kids can do some "logic stage" work but the focus of the education is on learning the facts. Similarly, they can do some "rhetoric stage" work (ie making conclusions based on facts and logic like discussing their opinion of the characters in a book like Narnia... "Edmond shouldn't have done that because ... I think..." But still the focus is on learning the facts.

 

Then in logic stage the focus shifts to arguing why and how. But they are still learning basic facts (new terms for math, science, etc. new concepts ...). Again they might venture into rhetoric discussions and that is fine.

 

At the rhetoric stage they are still learning new facts but this should be easy now. They are still learning their logic skills but this is not the focus for them. Their focus is at rhetorical discussions...learning rhetoric and how to use it.

 

I love the big picture ... How it all builds. Before it just all seemed random to me.

 

I also like the idea of covering history chronologically. Maybe this is not restricted to classical but this is where I heard about it. For writing it makes so much sense to me to start with copywork and move to dictation and then begin writing via a progymnasmata program. I really like the idea of being able to tie logic lessons n rhetoric lessons to writing. The Circe discussion threads is leading me to pull some of the historical fiction to make way for more of the great literature but I'm still thinking this thru.