Jump to content

Menu

Is classical conversations a cult..or product..or..


Recommended Posts

I would say that those peddling classical education models and curricula in the modern era do have a serious issue of coming off (to me) as both pretentious and preying on the insecurities of people who don't feel like they were educated well.

I seriously don't get the pretentiousness of neo-classical philosophies. :shrug: I personally think that neoclassical misses the fundamental core that made classical education so strong in developing critical thinking skills. I am not a fan of Sayers's philosophy at all. (And I say that as someone who does not follow the true classical ed model bc I think it is impossible to replicate at home. I think modern ed misses the boat but I am on that ride anyway.)

 

But, the first time I read Climbing Parnassus, gosh, I detested Tracy Simmons. :p I thought he was pretentious, overbearing, and elitist to the core. I did learn to eat crow over the yrs as I researched more and grew to understand the validity of his view. I now agree with his points on classical ed. Doesn't mean that I don't believe there are other way to become well-educated, but it is a different education. I think that true classical is probably the best way to develop deep critical thinking skills. I think my kids are well-educated, but no, they don't receive the benefit of a classical ed. In no way can I provide anything close to resembling either Simmons's or the Ratio's methodology.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 TWTM just doesn't give me this vibe of "We aren't just an option that might work for some kids and some parents, we are really the superior model of educating all human beings" that I got from reading Bortins. 

 

I see what you are saying.  I didn't dislike The Core, but I also prefer TWTM both in content and in tone. 

 

I think that that difference in tone may be because TWTM was written to promote an educational philosophy (classical home-based education), but Bortins, while promoting the same philosophy, is also promoting her own program as a means to putting in into practice.  As one who has had a (mostly) positive experience with CC, it IS a product worth promoting.  Marketing something is not bad. I've also had good experiences with other homeschool "products" and am grateful they were "promoted" by advertisers and by those who've used them successfully, including all you amazing folks here on TWTM forums.  ;)

 

But when the impression is given by any marketable option out there (CC, boxed curriculum, UM schools, for-profit online groups, etc...)  that IT is the ONLY or BEST way to do Classical home-based education....  well, that grates on my nerves. Probably on all of ours.   CC has had some PR-fails in this respect, IMHO.  (I'm thinking of one particular facebook ad that essentially equates Classical home-based education with CC; and while my own area-rep and director are great, there undoubtedly are some who've pushed CC as the ONLY way, too.)  

 

That shouldn't happen; Corporate CC should review its marketing strategies to prevent it, and train its reps and directors in their own "sales tactics," too.    

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I"m curious about where the scores for CC students came from.   I would assume that those scores are those students where the parents told CC what their kids scored?    Self-reporting of that type often skews results since those who didn't do well, may not want to share that information.  If I'm missing something, and there is some way that CC was sent the official scores for all students that were enrolled, let me know.

 

The scores had to be self-reported. Only an accredited school or school systems that are approved to give the SAT can receive their students' grades.

 

Multiple times during the seven years we were with CC, there was a call for National Latin Exam scores, standardized testing scores, SAT/ACT scores, and even AP scores with the names of the students. I always refused to do that, even when I was in charge of giving the National Latin Exam for our campus. It's never going to be statistically significant data that way, and I didn't like the invasion of privacy.

Edited by G5052
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But again, you can't make a direct connection with these stats. There's big difference between the average homeschool family and the CC family.

 

Not sure the difference is all that big, to be honest. I'm pretty sure that the average homeschool family's income is above average, especially if you take into consideration that most households in the US have 2 working parents, whereas plenty of homeschool families have only one working parent (in other words, if one parent earns $50k, that family is better off than if 2 parents combined make $50k, when it comes to helping kids with homework etc if enrolled in school, or with homeschooling if not). 

 

Without the context of the Z-Scores, percentiles, study design, etc. this doesn't tell us as much as it would appear. Yes, the raw scores may be higher, but if they are still less than 1 SD above the mean, it tells us NOTHING (for certain).

 

That's just not true. If the sample size is large enough, it could be a statistically significant difference if the average CC kid scored 541 and the average other kid scored 540, or w/e. Of course, it would also be a pretty meaningless difference, since I'm not going to care about a 1 point difference when I decide how to educate my kid, but the difference does certainly not have to be >1SD in order to be meaningful.

 

I get the distinct feeling that whatever I post will be questioned unless those results indicate that CC students perform at or below average, but I'll play, anyway.   ;)

 

 

That's simply not true. Some of us just object to misusing statistics, that's all. The comparison to other homeschool scores and high income scores would indicate that CC grads do pretty well. That said, Toto did bring up an important point:

 

I"m curious about where the scores for CC students came from.   I would assume that those scores are those students where the parents told CC what their kids scored?    Self-reporting of that type often skews results since those who didn't do well, may not want to share that information.  

 

 

I don't remember, did CC give the number of grads that submitted their scores? If it's the vast majority of their grads, I'm going to be willing to say that it does appear that their grads perform above average in anything other than math, where they seem fairly average for their SES etc. If, however, they polled only a few of their campuses, then they could've easily picked the ones they think would perform well above average, and the numbers would be meaningless (that'd be like picking a dozen public high schools in the US and posting their average scores and then saying that public school grads do very well - I'm sure I could pick a dozen schools to poll that would have well-above average scores, even without knowing all that much about them). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just not true. If the sample size is large enough, it could be a statistically significant difference if the average CC kid scored 541 and the average other kid scored 540, or w/e. Of course, it would also be a pretty meaningless difference, since I'm not going to care about a 1 point difference when I decide how to educate my kid, but the difference does certainly not have to be >1SD in order to be meaningful.

 

 

Btw, it would be good to know what the standard deviation on the SAT is for CC, homeschool, public school, private school, etc. If the SD for one of those groups is much bigger than for the others, then that would indicate that you'd really be rolling the dice by picking that option... you might come out anywhere from much worse than average to much better than average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I found myself sharing my 1st grader's materials with upper CC parents for English and Latin, I decided perhaps we better continue doing this at home instead of looking into the community.

It's really not surprising that Foundations materials could be utilized for Challenge-level students. Foundations was designed for preparing students for Challenge. Some of the English Grammar (definitions & word lists) and Latin memorization (declensions & conjugations) are helpful for older students. If the student is new to CC or just needed review, it would make sense that Foundations material would be beneficial.

 

That's simply not true. Some of us just object to misusing statistics, that's all. The comparison to other homeschool scores and high income scores would indicate that CC grads do pretty well.

 

In all fairness, it was suggested that there's no way to determine if CC students do well and that it was possible they did worse.

 

I posted scores.

 

The legitimacy of the comparison was questioned because it wasn't comparing CC homeschoolers to non-CC homeschoolers.

 

I posted that comparison.

 

The legitimacy of that comparison was questioned because it was suggested that income levels made a difference. (Hence my comment that you quoted.)

 

I posted that comparison.

 

I was right. When nothing else could be questioned, the idea became "the scores aren't legit so the comparison is invalid."

 

It didn't appear to be an attempt to find legit comparisons. It appeared to be attempt after attempt to explain away results that contradicted preconceived notions.

 

Maybe that's not what it was, but it certainly is the way it appeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not surprising that Foundations materials could be utilized for Challenge-level students. Foundations was designed for preparing students for Challenge. Some of the English Grammar (definitions & word lists) and Latin memorization (declensions & conjugations) are helpful for older students. If the student is new to CC or just needed review, it would make sense that Foundations material would be beneficial.

 

 

 

Mmmm....maybe.  But my son's material was clearer and better taught than what they were getting. I wasn't impressed with what they were doing at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not surprising that Foundations materials could be utilized for Challenge-level students. Foundations was designed for preparing students for Challenge. Some of the English Grammar (definitions & word lists) and Latin memorization (declensions & conjugations) are helpful for older students. If the student is new to CC or just needed review, it would make sense that Foundations material would be beneficial.

 

 

 

In all fairness, it was suggested that there's no way to determine if CC students do well and that it was possible they did worse.

 

I posted scores.

 

The legitimacy of the comparison was questioned because it wasn't comparing CC homeschoolers to non-CC homeschoolers.

 

I posted that comparison.

 

The legitimacy of that comparison was questioned because it was suggested that income levels made a difference. (Hence my comment that you quoted.)

 

I posted that comparison.

 

I was right. When nothing else could be questioned, the idea became "the scores aren't legit so the comparison is invalid."

 

It didn't appear to be an attempt to find legit comparisons. It appeared to be attempt after attempt to explain away results that contradicted preconceived notions.

 

Maybe that's not what it was, but it certainly is the way it appeared.

I'm all for clear statistics and I'm not a CC fan, but I think that questioning CC's educational results makes no sense since homeschool results are so extremely variable and in so many cases unreported.

 

I think you've made a goood case that CC students are getting a decent education,.

 

Again I think the problem with CC isn't the material it's all the other stuff about it, which makes it a frustrating product and because of the corporate control that it's not likely to change.

 

I for one would love to have used it as an option for my son who is very advanced, about 2 levels ahead of it. I would love for them to update the science and math to match what everyone is actually doing. I would love to see them get rid of the MLM system so splits atop happening. I would love for them to encourage stable communities, and to update it so that the tutors actually become trained teachers who do grading at the challenge level, and charge more for the program.

 

But that's not CC. :) CC is a highly controlled, highly aggressively marketed MLM company whose profits lie in keeping the model the way it is with no innovation on old material, low pay for employees, higher pay if they move up the ladder, and ridgid rules that only feed the MLM model rather than grow the community.

 

The books are fine if that's what you like.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can look it up. Go to Facebook and look in the classical conversations posts. It was part of their marketing to the Facebook crowd. This was not a sarcastic post. CC is a multi-million dollar business at the corporate level and is marketed as a low paying ministry at the community level.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just going off of an article on taxes 6 years ago with Leigh Bortin's saying how if she didn't have to pay such high tax rates for her company who's profits were $1-2 million, she could afford to hire more people. Based on how CC has grown, I'm still assuming multi-million.

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/27/pf/taxes/warren_buffett_tax_millionaires/index.htm

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Robert Bortins, CEO, says on the CC corporate website that CC has been doubling in size every 4 years. You take that $1-2 mil article and extrapolate a 150% increase in the last 6 years. Yes. Multi-millions.

 

And, BethBen, yes, yes, yes!!! Big Corp worldwide level, tiny little 'ole mom and pop mission opportunity at the local level. They're certainly good at controlling the narrative.

 

p.s. as for all the edits. Ugh. Morning. Math. Hard. 😂

Edited by AprilDianne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the comments, but I wanted to share some things I have learned about CC corporate policies that, according to what I have read on their closed Facebook group, they expect their contracted directors (community leaders) and above (support and area representatives - they used to be called "managers") to follow. And in some cases, according to the thread on the CC FB group and according to some of their support reps and directors, they even expect their customers to follow the policies.

 

The first is called a SMART plan - something that was first described to me years ago as a way to correct a "wayward community" but was more recently described as a way to approach any major conflict in a community - even among customers. It stands for Specific, Measurable, Accountable, Reasonable, and Timely They are supposedly steps in a written plan for conflict resolution that may be implemented by a director or a higher-up rep.

 

The second policy is PIRPL (some call it PERPL). From the Classical Conversations FB group, PIRPL is to say that there should be no written communication (email, paper, etc...) of anything of a Personal, Inflammatory, Religious, Performance-related, or Legal nature. It was also confirmed by a support rep in that FB group that the director's licensing guide (their handbook) explains that emails of this nature are to be immediately deleted by the director. I have heard a version where the email that violates PIRPL is to be deleted without being read.

 

The apologists explain that the deletion directive is simply to encourage face-to-face or voice-to-voice communication, but those who question it wonder why the email must be deleted. Why not simply read the email and then follow up in person?

 

I try to be careful what I share since CC threatened to sue me for defamation among other things, but everything here is true opinions (not defamatory) to the best of my knowledge from reading them in a large Facebook group and from my own personal experiences in a CC community. I share it now and here because it is relevant to the OP question about if there is a cult-like nature and because it was clear from the CC FB group thread that many people in CC did not know about these policies.

 

Hope this helps!

Edited by AprilDianne
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the comments, but I wanted to share some things I have learned about CC corporate policies that, according to what I have read on their closed Facebook group, they expect their contracted directors (community leaders) and above (support and area representatives - they used to be called "managers") to follow. And in some cases, according to the thread on the CC FB group and according to some of their support reps and directors, they even expect their customers to follow the policies.

 

The first is called a SMART plan - something that was first described to me years ago as a way to correct a "wayward community" but was more recently described as a way to approach any major conflict in a community - even among customers. It stands for Specific, Measurable, Accountable, Reasonable, and Timely They are supposedly steps in a written plan for conflict resolution that may be implemented by a director or a higher-up rep.

 

The second policy is PIRPL (some call it PERPL). From the Classical Conversations FB group, PIRPL is to say that there should be no written communication (email, paper, etc...) of anything of a Personal, Inflammatory, Religious, Performance-related, or Legal nature. It was also confirmed by a support rep in that FB group that the director's licensing guide (their handbook) explains that emails of this nature are to be immediately deleted by the director. I have heard a version where the email that violates PIRPL is to be deleted without being read.

 

The apologists explain that the deletion directive is simply to encourage face-to-face or voice-to-voice communication, but those who question it wonder why the email must be deleted. Why not simply read the email and then follow up in person?

 

I try to be careful what I share since CC threatened to sue me for defamation among other things, but everything here is true opinions (not defamatory) to the best of my knowledge from reading them in a large Facebook group and from my own personal experiences in a CC community. I share it now and here because it is relevant to the OP question about if there is a cult-like nature and because it was clear from the CC FB group thread that many people in CC did not know about these policies.

 

Hope this helps!

I can't speak to the SMART plan, although that sounds vaguely familiar.

 

The PIRPIL rule is true. The idea is that things can be misread when it's just in word format. Sometimes it's hard to detect tone, etc.

 

However, the flipside to that is - intentionally or not - the plausible deniability that exists when nothing is in writing. It gives the person the ability to backtrack, change her story, etc.

 

I'm not saying that was CC's goal (their official reasoning is so that people can discuss things face-to-face without misunderstandings), but it does seem to be a dangerous side effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is too bad they don't do exit surveys when people leave CC and have something in writing from everyone involved about how a conflict was resolved when there is a problem. I had a director assure me that her area manager backed her up completely and she confidently gave me the area manager's email and phone number.  The area manager's interaction with me was the complete opposite and she assured me it was not illegal for me to use my books at home with friends. She even told me how to make sure our use of our Foundations guide didn't look exactly like a day on a campus.

 

I wonder now if the area manager told the director she was completely wrong? Even two years later the director and her friends are rude to some of us who chose to leave CC.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second policy is PIRPL (some call it PERPL). From the Classical Conversations FB group, PIRPL is to say that there should be no written communication (email, paper, etc...) of anything of a Personal, Inflammatory, Religious, Performance-related, or Legal nature. It was also confirmed by a support rep in that FB group that the director's licensing guide (their handbook) explains that emails of this nature are to be immediately deleted by the director. I have heard a version where the email that violates PIRPL is to be deleted without being read.

 

That's interesting because in my college teaching, they ENCOURAGE email. Even if you have a face-to-face with a student about their grades, you are supposed to email them what you agreed to so that it is recorded. It's part of the trail of communication if the professor is sued.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most families in our community are far from privileged. Sure, a handful are, but that's certainly not the norm.

 

I get the distinct feeling that whatever I post will be questioned unless those results indicate that CC students perform at or below average, but I'll play, anyway. ;)

 

Previously, we've been looking at 2014 SAT results. I had a difficult time finding results from 2014 that were separated by income, but I did find an article analyzing the 2013 test results. Now, I know that there can be some issues with comparing separate years. However, this article from the Washington Post indicates that the results between 2013 & 2014 were stagnant.

 

2013 Scores according to this article are

 

Reading: 496

Writing: 488

Math: 514

 

Those scores are all within 1 point of their 2014 scores.

 

So, the statistics I posted earlier:

The scores I posted earlier (CC vs top state vs natl avg):

SAT Reading

630 vs 612 vs 497

SAT Writing

577 vs 587 vs 487

SAT Math

569 vs 620 vs 513

 

More directly compared, the average CC Homeschooler Score vs Average Homeschooler Score:

SAT Reading

630 vs 567

SAT Writing

577 vs 535

SAT Math

569 vs 521

MSNBC published this article in March 2014 comparing family incomes and SAT scores. The Washington Post also posted a similar article.

 

Let's continue under the assumption that CC families are privileged and look at SAT scores of students with a household income of approximately $180,000 - 200,000. It's important to note that neither article gives an exact score. We'll have to estimate the scores based on the graph.

MSNBC shows that students in families with a combined income of $180,000-200,000 scored (approximately):

Reading: 545

Writing: 540

Math: 565

Exact CC Scores vs. Approximate $180,000-200,000 income:

Reading:

630 vs 545

Writing:

577 vs 540

Math:

569 vs 565

 

The average student enrolled in CC out-performed the average student with a combined household income of $180,000 - 200,000. Granted, the math scores are close.

 

I don't have statistics regarding CC family incomes, and I don't know what you call "privileged." In my experience, the majority of families in our community make far less than $180,000. Granted, I don't know what their exact incomes are, but I do know their professions.

Sidenote: I know that the numbers you asked for were regarding high-income homeschoolers. If that data exists, I have no clue where to find it. However, I can't imagine that there would be a glaring difference between the $180,000 - 200,000 income bracket test scores of public, private, & homeschooled students. If someone else was to find it, I would love to see the comparison. Based on the comparisons I've already seen, I have a pretty good idea how that would turn out.

I do want to emphasize that I'm not trying to imply that CC is the best program out there for everyone. I mentioned earlier that I don't think it's the best option for everyone. I'm not even sure that CC in high school will be the best option for us. My point is that CC students are successful, they score well, and they are easily able to gain college admission. I think if one compared similarly solid programs with CC, one would find that the scores were similar.

Not sure if this was already discussed but CC parents provide their child, for the most part, an at home classical education which stats has shown time and again to lead to good educational outcomes and high test scores. When CC compares their scores to typical homeschoolers are they comparing to those reporting to provide a classical education or are they including all types of homeschooling (typical box curriculum, unschoolers, common core focused, free online schooling, and so forth)?

 

I guess what I would like to see are scores that show CC, classical at home, Cottage Schools, VP online etc. That would be interesting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously don't get the pretentiousness of neo-classical philosophies. :shrug: I personally think that neoclassical misses the fundamental core that made classical education so strong in developing critical thinking skills. I am not a fan of Sayers's philosophy at all. (And I say that as someone who does not follow the true classical ed model bc I think it is impossible to replicate at home. I think modern ed misses the boat but I am on that ride anyway.)

 

But, the first time I read Climbing Parnassus, gosh, I detested Tracy Simmons. :p I thought he was pretentious, overbearing, and elitist to the core. I did learn to eat crow over the yrs as I researched more and grew to understand the validity of his view. I now agree with his points on classical ed. Doesn't mean that I don't believe there are other way to become well-educated, but it is a different education. I think that true classical is probably the best way to develop deep critical thinking skills. I think my kids are well-educated, but no, they don't receive the benefit of a classical ed. In no way can I provide anything close to resembling either Simmons's or the Ratio's methodology.

 

I think, to be fair, that people have lent a lot more weight to Sayers thoughts on this, and used them in a different way, than she ever intended.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

someone tell me more about true classical vs neoclassical, or link a thread?

 

some quick reads:

 

"Classical Education Movement" -- Wikipedia article

"Classical vs. Neo Classical: What's the Difference?" -- past WTM thread

"Neoclassical vs classical ed." -- past Memoria Press thread

"Neo Classical Education and CM Education" -- past article & comments from Simply Charlotte Mason website

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've read through those, and the difference seems to be the use of Socratic dialog and the insistence on Latin and Greek, would that be a fair summary?

 

This REALLY gets away from the OP, and I don't want to drag this thread there (nor do I really want to get involved in this discussion b/c it really takes stepping outside of modern educational thinking.)  But, how you worded your question stems from how modern education approaches education and not the way classical education would have been approached.  It isn't an insistence on Latin and Greek but that Latin and Greek are the foundation of all learning.  The languages train the mind and training the mind was the goal, not filling the mind with knowledge.  

 

On a basic level, master teachers are teaching students.  Students are competing grammar recitations and in orations of Cicero, etc.  Latin and Greek grammar mastery is essential for training orators and rhetoricians.  There is no such thing as cyclical history.  No compartmentalizing grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric as ages/stages. They are subjects.

 

Here are few quotes that sum up some of the philosophy of classical:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

To general erudition and encyclopedic learning medieval education has less close relations than that of Alexandria, principally because the Trivium had a formal character, i.e. it aimed at training the mind rather than imparting knowledge. The reading of classic authors was considered as an appendix to the Trivium. Hugo, who, as we have seen, does not undervalue it, includes in his reading poems, fables, histories, and certain other elements of instruction (poemata, fabulae, historiae, didascaliae quaedam). The science of language, to use the expression of Augustine, is still designated as the key to all positive knowledge; for this reason its position at the head of the Arts (Artes) is maintained. So John of Salisbury (b. between 1110 and 1120; d. 1180, Bishop of Chartres) says: "If grammar is the key of all literature, and the mother and mistress of language, who will be bold enough to turn her away from the threshold of philosophy? Only he who thinks that what is written and spoken is unnecessary for the student of philosophy

 

It is a very different way of thinking about education.  If you consider the approach of the Ratio in the Middle Ages, it is impossible to replicate at home.  It is dependent on the mastery of the teacher and daily competitions/recitations in Latin and Greek are fundamental.

 

It is way more complex than that, but they are very different educational pedagogies.

Edited by 8FillTheHeart
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this was already discussed but CC parents provide their child, for the most part, an at home classical education which stats has shown time and again to lead to good educational outcomes and high test scores. When CC compares their scores to typical homeschoolers are they comparing to those reporting to provide a classical education or are they including all types of homeschooling (typical box curriculum, unschoolers, common core focused, free online schooling, and so forth)?

 

I guess what I would like to see are scores that show CC, classical at home, Cottage Schools, VP online etc. That would be interesting to me.

I don't even know where to get those statistics.  I picked a few types of curriculum and googled their results.  I have no idea what year(s) the sites used for reference.

 

ACE students tended to perform lower than the average public schooler.

 

Sonlight users tend to have scores higher than the national average.

 

I didn't find anything for Abeka, Calvert, VP online, classical at home, Alpha Omega, or Bob Jones.  

 

I did see one link about classical education having higher scores than the national average, but that was on a private school's website.

 

I did not dig through sites to find solid, scientific data to verify anything in the above links.  If someone is interested, feel free.

 

----------------------------------------

 

To clarify, CC did NOT compare their scores to typical homeschoolers.  Someone asked upthread, so I showed numbers for the average homeschooler vs. CC.  I would assume those would be the average homeschooler (unschooler, boxed curric, classical, etc).

 

CC ONLY compared their scores to those of the top ranking state and the national averages.

 

No one, including CC, suggested that CC students were better educated than all other homeschoolers.  I posted stats regarding certain groups when they were questioned.  When I researched it, I had no idea what the outcome would be.  Researching to prove my point could have easily backfired.  It's pretty much wherever the chips fell.  The whole point of posting the scores from the get-go was due to someone questioning whether or not CC students were well-educated.  They are.  That was the point.  The end.

 

I'm certain that the variances in the average public schooler's scores would be about the same as the average home schooler's scores.  Effectiveness of instruction goes from one end to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've read through those, and the difference seems to be the use of Socratic dialog and the insistence on Latin and Greek, would that be a fair summary?

To me a key difference is that neoclassical education is more adopting classical approaches in order to better implement a modern education, while people who are deliberately aiming for a classical-not-neoclassical education are trying to implement classical education as past generations did it *instead of* a modern education. IOW, neoclassical education by and large is trying to achieve the same goals as public school, only better. It may also be aiming for additional, higher goals, but at a minimum, the goal is for kids to be well-educated by modern standards, to be competitive with the better public schools. When and where classical elements interfere with that goal, instead of aid that goal, those classical elements will be discarded in favor of the goal of being at least as well educated as good public school students.

 

Otoh, people who are deliberately pursuing some kind of "traditional" classical education are trying to achieve *different* goals. They are classically educating because they value the educational goals of the past *more than* the goals of the present. (In fact, ime, many people are pursuing traditional classical education in order to *recover* those lost-to-them goals.). In theory, at least, if push came to shove, they'd choose the goods that traditional classical ed inculcates over the goods associated with being well-educated by modern standards. They'd accept being less educated by modern standards in order to be well educated by older standards. (That's easier to say than do, of course.)

 

I see traditional classical educators as valuing traditional classical goals *over* modern educational goals, while neoclassical educators value classical education's goals *inasmuch* as they allow them to achieve modern educational goals. If you turned out a well-trained classical graduate, but they were just mediocre by the standards of your community, would you be satisfied with your classical homeschool or not?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting because in my college teaching, they ENCOURAGE email. Even if you have a face-to-face with a student about their grades, you are supposed to email them what you agreed to so that it is recorded. It's part of the trail of communication if the professor is sued.

Yeah, it's a super creepy policy IMHO. An unnamed official CC "big cheese" (only referred to as that) wrote that a paper trail is encouraged when printed out or written out and hand-delivered. This "big cheese" explained that PIRPL was just a policy to encourage face-to-face communication (what all the other pro-CC commenters were saying) but never addressed the deletion directive which is clearly written in the director's handbook. Why?! Why delete?? No answer. Comments closed. Cultish? I think so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi, yes your thoughts are valid. Along with the good there's just that whole MLM feel. Yuck.

 

 

That's the second time someone said that...about parochial school being the same price. Really ? You have parochial schools which charge 1200/yr?

I am in rural Minnesota--where most would close if they charged as much as your other post stated.  Many even have scholarships.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I think telling your story is so important because while one story does not guarantee others will experience it, many MANY stories adds more weight by increasing your sample size N value.

 

We were all set to jump on board a group in the fall and then I really started investigating. Once it received the foundations "curriculum" and looked at it I bailed. Too expensive just for the social group we were going to use it for and the curriculum was silly to me. I can sit at home and make my kids memorize random facts if I am so inclined to do so. I don't need to pay a lot of money for it.

 

Thank you, by the way, for that lovely song now looping through my head ;)

 

The same thing happened to those with bad experiences with TJED and others.  People rode them hard until they either went through it, knew others that did, or heard so many horror stories that they could no longer ignore it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

For those feeling like CC is a MLM.....google Noble Gibbens. He is CC’s marketing director and also sells......Amway. He is actually pretty high up in Amway. And is absolutely running CC like a MLM. This company is neither Christian or a ministry.

Edited by eyeswideopen
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those feeling like CC is a MLM.....google Nobel Gibbens. He is CC’s marketing director and also sells......Amway. He is actually pretty high up in Amway. And is absolutely running CC like a MLM. This company is neither Christian or a ministry.

Wow! So glad I dodged that bullet. One visit told me it was a crazy cult. After Montessori I just won't fall for another bowl of kool-aid. Thanks for this. It doesn't surprise me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! Ok, for people searching his name is spelled "Noble" Gibbens. He seems to be the main admin in CC's Facebook group - the group which CC believers often loudly proclaim is *not* "run by CC" though their marketing director is the main admin and Robert Bortins himself (CEO of CC) is also an admin. If anyone still has stars in her eyes about whether this is a big business company is a mom and pop ministry I hope these facts help open their eyes. I didn't even know of Noble except through friends. I was kicked off that FB group years ago, well before I received the threat letter I got from Classical Conversations's lawyers in mid-2016. Here's the weird thing: I never interacted with Noble. I don't even think he was an admin in that Classical Conversations Facebook group when I got blocked from it. But when I went to check this info about him being in Amway on his Facebook page, I was blocked! I only know for sure I am blocked because I can see Noble's page from my husband's Facebook account. How insane is that? Does this "Christian" company have a list sitting around somewhere of people to preemptively block?!

Edited by Loolamay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those feeling like CC is a MLM.....google Noble Gibbens. He is CC’s marketing director and also sells......Amway. He is actually pretty high up in Amway. And is absolutely running CC like a MLM. This company is neither Christian or a ministry.

 

A non-human incorporeal entity can neither be Christian nor a ministry. This should be self evident.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! So glad I dodged that bullet. One visit told me it was a crazy cult. After Montessori I just won't fall for another bowl of kool-aid. Thanks for this. It doesn't surprise me.

 

We are test driving CC. They have a reasonably good turn-key system for younger children. Our local group is filled with fabulous people- especially the TEACHERS (not "tutors-" this "distinction without a difference" should be informal fallacy 1 that they teach.). The material is otherwise more than adequately challenging for crumb crunchers.

 

The first important disconnect occurs in the discussion of the Philosophy of Science. There is a BIG disjunction between the Empirical method and metaphysics, and no amount of frosting is going to ever smooth this over. It's the Religion of Public School in reverse. Now, to the extent that the parents wish to maintain their children's purity of creed, this is EXACTLY what you want. However, if your goal in education is for your child to be properly prepared for the sciences and/or to be a competent apologist, then knowing the Empirical method inside and out is *sine qua non.*

 

That said, without stirring any other parents' soup (because unlike the government, I RESPECT the SOVEREIGN RIGHT of parents to educate their children as they see fit), I can assure you that our children will not be lacking in this area.

 

Finally, despite the wonderful things our local group is and does, make no mistake that CC is about as much of a ministry as Scientology is. Like Scientology, you are kept in the dark about what future steps REALLY are (in detail) and fed a lot of malarkey about proprietary systems and materials. ("Hey guys! I think I'll go out and patent arithmetic, puppy dogs, fluffy bunny rabbits, blue skies, and sun shine! I'll be rich! Whoo hoo!" CC plays a bad game of hiding the ball and they contort what is clearly a MLM business to masquerade as a ministry.

 

As of now, the market is wide open for a competitor or some other honest broker of a Soup to Nuts, Lock, Stock, and Barrel, CompleteTurn Key Homeschooling system. That day has not arrived as of yet. Maybe someone will get on the ball. The barriers to entry are ridiculously low.

 

And speaking of WIDE OPEN, keep your EYES wide open should you decide to purchase their products. In case your experience with CC goes sideways, always know in advance what your contingency plan(s) is(are).

 

PS, One other thing- CC members are NOT background checked. If I walked in as a parent, and met another version of myself... ("myself" as the example so I do not unwittingly slander some other father and muddy their good reputation) ...with a nice suit and hair cut, would I simply TRUST that person to instruct my 12 year old daughter unsupervised?

 

Yeah, neither would I and nor should you.

 

Are females "safer" perhaps? Without being sexist, I think we all intuit the answer to that one. Some things are just tacitly understood. But you never know. I believe in background checks on EVERYONE. It's a pity that we can't do FORE-ground checks and predict the future bad behavior of people, a la the screen play *Minority Report.*

 

Edited by Gregkar
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now, the market is wide open for a competitor or some other honest broker of a Soup to Nuts, Lock, Stock, and Barrel, CompleteTurn Key Homeschooling system. That day has not arrived as of yet. Maybe someone will get on the ball. The barriers to entry are ridiculously low.

 

Then you have people like me who cringe at that very idea bc we view that entire proposal as the antithesis of homeschooling and actually creating a school that simply attempts to fly under the radar of regulating bodies. (Of course I actually embrace homeschooling as home schooling.)

 

Creating an entire k12 curriculum that students study and come to a building with teachers teaching those subjects based on that curriculum, that is really a school with parents simply doing what they are provided and told. I personally believe that type of system should fall under a different regulating system than homeschooling. That would really closer to a private school or a morphed version of a correspondence school with an in-class element than a homeschool. To become a national for-profit chain with no accredition or regulation....that to me does not serve the needs of children and would most likely offer poorer educational outcomes. (And I am not sure why parents would want to trust a program with no real oversight over curriculum selection/design or qualifications of teachers when they are handing off that responsibility to someone/something else.)

 

Fwiw, university model schools exist, and they are typically much stronger academically than CC. If they actually have the name UM, then I think they fall under the UM accrediting body since I think that they are accredited in some way. If my understanding is correct, they do have regulations and qualified teachers. (I am not 100% positive though. I just remember reading something about accreditation. If ai wanted to enroll my kids in something like that, I would want to know.)

 

Know what is currently available to parents? Loads of curriculum options and tools for teaching their kids at home when parents take on the responsibility to educate their children without enrolling in a school. The educational "outcome barrier" should be the paramount concern before the decision to homeschool is made and that outcome "barrier cost" should be based on very high standards.

Edited by 8FillTheHeart
  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are test driving CC. They have a reasonably good turn-key system for younger children. Our local group is filled with fabulous people- especially the TEACHERS (not "tutors-" this "distinction without a difference" should be informal fallacy 1 that they teach.). The material is otherwise more than adequately challenging for crumb crunchers.

 

The first important disconnect occurs in the discussion of the Philosophy of Science. There is a BIG disjunction between the Empirical method and metaphysics, and no amount of frosting is going to ever smooth this over. It's the Religion of Public School in reverse. Now, to the extent that the parents wish to maintain their children's purity of creed, this is EXACTLY what you want. However, if your goal in education is for your child to be properly prepared for the sciences and/or to be a competent apologist, then knowing the Empirical method inside and out is *sine qua non.*

 

That said, without stirring any other parents' soup (because unlike the government, I RESPECT the SOVEREIGN RIGHT of parents to educate their children as they see fit), I can assure you that our children will not be lacking in this area.

 

Finally, despite the wonderful things our local group is and does, make no mistake that CC is about as much of a ministry as Scientology is. Like Scientology, you are kept in the dark about what future steps REALLY are (in detail) and fed a lot of malarkey about proprietary systems and materials. ("Hey guys! I think I'll go out and patent arithmetic, puppy dogs, fluffy bunny rabbits, blue skies, and sun shine! I'll be rich! Whoo hoo!" CC plays a bad game of hiding the ball and they contort what is clearly a MLM business to masquerade as a ministry.

 

As of now, the market is wide open for a competitor or some other honest broker of a Soup to Nuts, Lock, Stock, and Barrel, CompleteTurn Key Homeschooling system. That day has not arrived as of yet. Maybe someone will get on the ball. The barriers to entry are ridiculously low.

 

And speaking of WIDE OPEN, keep your EYES wide open should you decide to purchase their products. In case your experience with CC goes sideways, always know in advance what your contingency plan(s) is(are).

 

PS, One other thing- CC members are NOT background checked. If I walked in as a parent, and met another version of myself... ("myself" as the example so I do not unwittingly slander some other father and muddy their good reputation) ...with a nice suit and hair cut, would I simply TRUST that person to instruct my 12 year old daughter unsupervised?

 

Yeah, neither would I and nor should you.

 

Are females "safer" perhaps? Without being sexist, I think we all intuit the answer to that one. Some things are just tacitly understood. But you never know. I believe in background checks on EVERYONE. It's a pity that we can't do FORE-ground checks and predict the future bad behavior of people, a la the screen play *Minority Report.*

 

With all due respect to your wife and my husband, I think I love you. J/K but it does gall me to realize that I knew immediately from your unflinching tone that you are a man.

 

As for the background checks: I'm on my fourth heard (first-hand) story of child endangerment, sexual harassment, or outright physical abuse on a CC campus. You haven't heard about them, right? That's because in each one, I am told by the victims, the matter was hushed up at a managerial level by shunning, accusations of "gossip", and/or most disturbingly, the knowledge that to take such things to the appropriate authorities would likely imperil the director (who is usually the victim's friend) more than the CC corporation. Why background check when you can place all the liability on some poor schlub who may be unwittingly running what may not being acknowledged to be a franchise of the parent corporation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no expert but here's my suspicion. American Heritage Girls is a non-profit and no one is making money. CC is a private, for-profit, and every director is (supposed to be) making money in her own "independent business" which is the CC community. She's a licensee of CC, allowed to use the Classical Conversations name in exchange for a licensing fee. Soooo, it's money-making at every level. Also, the vast majority of workers for CC communities are paid as "independent contractors". My guess is that requiring background checks would make those workers look even less like true independent contractors (and, in my opinion, looking at the IRS guidelines, those workers already don't look like independent contractors but employees). Add a required background check to all the other controls, and... I just think they *might* be worried it will be a red flag against the independent contractor status. That's just me spitballing, though. I think it's a similar reason that Uber staunchly refuses to fingerprint check their drivers. I don't think it's the cost of the fingerprinting. I think it's that their business model of all drivers being "independent contractors" is already under fire (see multiple state-level lawsuits where workers claim they were classified as independent contractors when they were treated as employees) and they know requiring fingerprinting would even further blur that line of whether or not their workers are really ICs. Again, I'm spitballing about Uber's motives, but it seems like a logical conclusion to me.

Edited by Loolamay
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our director does go above and beyond to ensure that our kiddos are as safe as possible. We have strict policies about bathroom usage and adult/student one-on-one interaction.

 

That said, background checks should be mandatory, IMO. I've been background-checked for a bazillion volunteer positions. There aren't many legit reasons that would explain why they don't have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, whaddya know? I found this:

https://classical-conversations.helpscoutdocs.com/article/40-who-can-be-a-tutor-for-classical-conversations

 

It may be a very recent thing, since the article was updated in September of this year. I know two years ago when I tutored no directors or tutors in our area were background checked. The article does not say it's mandatory just that you "must submit to a background check", but it certainly seems like a step in the right direction...

 

It is weird though that, according to that article I linked above, a Challenge director must have at least one child at or above that Challenge level, and I know at least one Challenge director, new this year, who definitely does not have a Challenge-aged child, so it does make one wonder how much of their own "rules" they are following/enforcing.

Edited by Loolamay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess it varies by location....all of the tutors and directors in our community have been background checked. Our community also has rules for two adults in each class. We’re new to CC Challenge level, and I don’t agree with all of CC’s business practices or curriculum choices, but so far the positives outweigh the negatives for our family.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those feeling like CC is a MLM.....google Noble Gibbens. He is CC’s marketing director and also sells......Amway. He is actually pretty high up in Amway. And is absolutely running CC like a MLM. This company is neither Christian or a ministry.

 

I'm sure it was here that someone said cc is like the Amway of homeschooling.  My friend and I laughed at that and now to hear they have someone who worked for Amway is hilarious.  Thanks for sharing that!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, whaddya know? I found this:

https://classical-conversations.helpscoutdocs.com/article/40-who-can-be-a-tutor-for-classical-conversations

 

It may be a very recent thing, since the article was updated in September of this year. I know two years ago when I tutored no directors or tutors in our area were background checked. The article does not say it's mandatory just that you "must submit to a background check", but it certainly seems like a step in the right direction...

 

It is weird though that, according to that article I linked above, a Challenge director must have at least one child at or above that Challenge level, and I know at least one Challenge director, new this year, who definitely does not have a Challenge-aged child, so it does make one wonder how much of their own "rules" they are following/enforcing.

I also know a Foundations tutor without a child in Foundations. I think some of it is a "let's see if we can do this withoit being caught" thing. In this particular situation, there didn't seem to be another tutor to be able to step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I don’t agree with all of CC’s business practices or curriculum choices, but so far the positives outweigh the negatives for our family.

 

Ditto. CC has huge gaping defects, but for today they are the best of the limited options in our area for our child.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, all school-aged kids have to be in the program. I know someone who put her high school kids into Challenge so they could continue as a family even though she had them doing over half of their work elsewhere. They say it is for providing a consistent "face" to the program. I can see it somewhat, but I've never heard of a university model or private school doing that. In our county we actually have an elementary and a high school principal whose wives homeschool all of their kids, and it's not a requirement for them to have their kids in public school either.

 

 

I am not a CC administrator but I have never heard of this in my experience with Classical Conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...