Yes, that does make sense. CM was misunderstood as "gentle" and feminine, while Classical was seen as rigorous and masculine. Some of those myths were busted here. here. And applying CM kindy and lower primary methods, ie half days and short lessons, to highschool? You just wouldn't get very far. Thanks for your intriguing thoughts on this! :lurk5:

Thanks everyone. I really enjoyed SWB's article: she made a good point about no version being exactly as it came out of the mouth of Plato 2400 years ago. Another question is: would homeschoolers being doing themselves or their children a disservice if they misinterpreted CM as not Classical, or vice versa? How important is it?

Mine was homeschooled from grade 5 until the beginning of 10th. He returned to school for 6 months and I noticed a huge decline in his interest in learning. This was disheartening as I put so much into his learning at home. But he begged to come home again and his interest in learning has returned.

There has been some debate recently between Chris Perrin and Art Middlekauf in the comments of this article: https://www.charlottemasoninstitute.org/reconsidering-charlotte-mason-and-the-classical-tradition-by-art-middlekauff/ My question is: why would it be important to know whether or not CM was CE? What might be behind the passion shown by one side versus the other? Do we define a 'method' by its universals or particulars, its purpose or its method? Looking forward to hearing everyone's views as I'm genuinely curious :001_smile: