TheAutumnOak
-
Posts
2,146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by TheAutumnOak
-
-
You have a crazy shedding dog too that you go upstairs to escape? :D
:lol: No, no dogs...I do have a crazy shedding cat though :tongue_smilie:
I have been thinking about my wanting to be downstairs so it would be easier for me to do other things and multitask while teaching...I have not done the best job in the past of totally devoting myself to my boys education, so maybe trying to do other things is not the best option...
I want my boys to see that I take their education seriously...I want to take their education more seriously...
I think I am staying upstairs...
Thanks Mom-ninja...
-
I like having a school room. I don't want to multitask while doing lessons. By being upstairs it reminds me that I have a job to do and that is teaching/helping my kids with lessons. The house can wait. I want my kids to get the message through my undivided attention (as in house work vs lessons) that I take their education seriously and they should too. So I treat our lessons as if I worked outside the house....as best I can. I do house chores before lessons, during lunch, and after lessons.
There are times I go downstairs to start lunch and my kids are still working. Yes, they usually goof off and don't get done. However, they are learning how to use their time and to focus even while I'm not there. They are kids and it's a tough thing to learn, but they are getting there.
Anyway, I like not having to clear the table to eat meals. There are times when I still do such as when we do a messy art or science project. Those take place on the dining table.
My kids love having their own desk and portion of wall to use and decorate.
Also, another huge bonus, is that the floor in the school room is much cleaner than downstairs because the dog is not allowed upstairs. :lol:
This comment is making me rethink giving up my schoolroom upstairs...I have been thinking about this since I read it yesterday...
-
It starts around page 176 or 177 of this link http://www.jsea.org/sites/default/files/resources/attachments/Foundations.pdf
Thanks for this link 8...
-
Labels have a limited use, but I think they are important when we look at how we use them, how HS moms make decisions based upon them. It's no skin off my nose if you call my homeschool a circus (it is some days LOL), but I feel a certain responsibility when it comes to introducing a new HSer to the terms. I'd hate for someone to be misled into thinking that CM = merely relaxed schooling or unschooling. Newbies might look at the wonderful examples of CM graduates and assume that merely not requiring a writing curriculum will produce a writer. That would be deceptive, and that's why labels matter.
:iagree: It doesn't matter at all what you consider your homeschool or what you call it...It doesn't matter at all how many methods you use and how you choose to blend them...In the public arena, it is misleading to misrepresent things though...It can confuse at best and deceive at worst...
My thoughts now after reading through this thread is that what I have known to be classical is not the same as CM, but all of the things I have known to be classical are really not the same as each other either...If CM falls under the classical umbrella I am fine with that, but still thinks it can stand on its own without the classical label...
-
5
-
-
My son will be 14 next week and he still plays...He loves sports though and usually plays outside when he can, but he will still set up Lego and play with them...My younger two definitely will play more with toys than my oldest does, but he still plays...We don't have a video gaming system but we do own an Ipad mini, and he will play a few games on there as well...
-
My issue is that CM is a method that does not require classical content, which is partly why I love it so much. So while I bow to the wisdom of those who say the similarities are vast, I would never have described myself as a classical home schooler, which to me implies very different content and aims.
If the above statement is true, then there is a difference...It seems like CM can be used in a classical way or not according to what I see others saying...
-
Read Climbing Parnassus. Read CM's books (at least read book 6). It will become clear.
Everything we see billed as classical is neoclassical. CM is one flavor of neoclassical.
Classical, at it's most basic level, is a liberal (generous) education based upon Western Ideals (founded in Greek and Latin roots). One can go about doing that in many different ways, and there we see CM, TWTM, MP, and more... The difference between these flavors of Classical go back to philosophical roots. Here is where you must understand the history of education b/c words change meaning based upon who is hearing them. CM is most certainly Classical, NeoClassical, in the light of Climbing Parnassus.
The issue is that people form opinions on things they've never studied for themselves and speak loudly. Others write curriculum without a farthing of understanding of the philosophy that *should* serve as the foundation. It's easy to find products marketed as Classical b/c homeschooling has become a niche market $$$. CM doesn't ever really boast about being Classical. She spends a great deal of time reminding her readers that children are people, deserving of respect and consideration, and that these little people are hungry for ideas. Her students memorize, recite, and know. These things are not trotted around like a dog and pony show, however. (Hey - these children are PEOPLE.) She understood very well that you train up nothing but a selfish tyrant if you do nothing but memorize facts and practice mental tricks. Cultured people (Kind, generous, caring, hard-working, etc...) must be grown up on ideas, ideas about human nature, and from the first. We cannot expect anything but manipulative con-artists if we use manipulative tactics to shove facts and tricks down the throats of our "students." Our students will learn more by HOW we teach than WHAT we teach.
CM gives us insight into how to achieve a Classical Education without so many of the emotionally abusive tactics that were prevalent in Victorian English schools. (Education is an Atmosphere, a Discipline, a Life) That insight is still applicable if we read it with an understanding of the world that CM lived in and therefore the world in which helped form her writing.
I understand and like what you are saying...I don't want you to think I started this thread to put CM in a negative light...Not at all...I just wonder why CM is now a synonym for classical...Her work should stand on its own and not need the brand of classical if that is not what she called herself...
-
As a blogger and a homeschool mom who has found herself too many times on the side of undisciplined, I am very interested in the turn this thread has taken. As I've become more disciplined out of necessity and conviction, I have found myself becoming frustrated with the current mantra of many of the homeschoolers I encounter online and in my specific religious denomination. A lackadaisical attitude about their children's education. I even had a close friend tell me that she hadn't done any school with her kids for an entire year because she'd been so busy with other commitments. It really changed how I viewed her and we are not very close any more. She laughed it off as no big deal because their spiritual growth is more important than their academic growth. I find this attitude disturbing and, dare I say, neglectful. But it seems to be a common one: that whatever you do at home (even if you do nothing) is more than what they would learn in public school. I think that there are many blogs that feed this belief whether on purpose or not, I hesitate to say. I would love to use my blog as a "roll up your sleeves" type of platform since I've been on the other side of things, but have come through. However, I don't know what this would look like beyond, "You get up every morning and you teach." I'm not sure how much more blunt you can put it.
This is me, and I am still trying to come through on the other side...
Teaching from a state of rest for me means not teaching things because of fear or worry...It is being prepared and not anxious...
-
4
-
-
I have not joined in this discussion at all b/c I didn't really want to engage. But this post definitely caught my attention. This ties in to the discussion of less is more. I have had 2 conversations recently where, trust me, it is clearly evident that less simply translates into less. Um, no, not all approaches are equal. (I'm in a bad mood, so excuse my bluntness.)
No excuse needed for the bluntness :) ...Glad you dropped by...
-
Exactly. Which is sad, because I was really really looking forward to it. I suppose I was imagining a Circe for homeschoolers, maybe a tiny bit less lofty and a tiny bit more practical. I'd be interested to hear THEIR interpretation of what classical means because despite their intro series I'm not clear.
Maybe this is just me and my local community but I don't see much of a need for another homeschooling blog that say, "do the best you can do, and that is enough." I mean, yes, that's true. But I think homeschooling parents have more of a lack of discipline than a lack of confidence. I see more parents turning from "do the best you can do, and that's is enough" to, "do what is convenient and that is enough" than I do parents really honestly doing their best and still not feeling adequate.
I know that I don't need another feel-good pat on the back. I need practical tips on how to better myself and my teaching. And sometimes an honest kick in the but that no, it's not ok to skip math for a month because the baby has colic.
The bold above is it!
Whether or not you need to "relax" depends on your starting point...Some people will push their kids to the breaking point to accomplish their goals - those people need to relax...I think the average person is not like that...If you know that you have not been consistent, you do not need to "relax"...A relaxed approach should be a conscience decision based on your needs and goals, not a state you are forced into due to lack of discipline...There are legitimate reasons to put school aside for a time, but again, that is a conscience decision...
-
9
-
-
Tahara, you might find this discussion of classical an CM helpful. I haven't ever made it through the whole thing, but it's definitely very interesting: https://amblesideonline.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3448&highlight=Classical
Thanks for the link :001_smile:
-
I lent my schoolroom tables to a friend for a few days, so this week we are doing schoolwork at the dining room table. (Actually, it's the kitchen table. Our kitchen is a huge country kitchen type of room, more than just an eat in kitchen but not actually a separate dining room and kitchen. So we have an island in the kitchen part and a big table in the dining part.). The kids say they don't like it, because we keep having to lug stuff back and forth from the schoolroom. I liked having it all right there too.
I know this is not the point, but I have never heard of anyone borrowing someone's schoolroom tables :tongue_smilie:
-
My educational objectives are influenced by my desired outcomes. My goals for my children are directly tied to 3 main objectives: skills, content, and higher order thinking skills (moving through the levels of Bloom's taxonomy.) My methods for teaching are very deliberate and my children's daily lesson are specifically chosen and assigned with those objectives in sight. Less is more because I make sure that their assignments do not waste time with busy work. I respect their intellect and their time. Assignments are meaningful. Assignments encompass as many skills/objectives simultaneously as I believe they are capable of mastering.
I think I want to be 8Fill when I grow up :001_wub:
-
It depends...
I agree with simplicity in general in every area of life...For me, that simply means "enough is enough" and more than that is too much...Less than that is not enough...
If you can relax, do less, and get wonderful results - you were probably doing too much...
If you are not doing enough (most of us know when we have not been consistent or if we are having problems getting things done), then less will not be more...It will be less than what you were doing, which was not enough...
I totally agree that less of too much is more...Being consistent with what is needed is best...
The key is figuring out what you need...Do you really need two or three math programs to teach your child the same math principles (addition, fractions, etc)?...If you did one consistently, would your child still learn what he/she needs to know?...Being afraid of missing something seems to be what leads to doing too much...Making a conscience decision about what is needed without the fear and comparisons to other people, and being consistent with that, seems to lead to doing enough...
Enough is actually all you need...Not more, not less...
-
You're welcome... DH will be glad to know that my personal reading budget isn't being completely wasted. ;) Though the stuff about 19th century philosophy and pedagogy still confuses me a lot.
Someone asked about the curriculum that would have been considered "classical" in CM's day. A while back, I found an old article from an American boys' magazine that described a visitor's impression of a day at an English boys' school. I think I might have posted it here, but can't find it. Will keep looking. There's also M. L. Clarke's Classical Education in Britain 1500-1900, which isn't in the public domain, but you can view parts of it at the publisher's site and Amazon, or the full book with a free trial from Questia.
As far as I can tell, the English classical system of grammar schools and elite "public schools" had only fairly minor changes from the Renaissance right up to the days of Tolkien and Lewis. The Catholic colleges in North America were also remarkably constant during this period; they seem to have held out against modernization even longer than the ones in Continental Europe did. And it's possible that some people who are still around today might have been educated under the old humanistic system -- like Fr. James Schall SJ, who only retired last year at age 86 and is still writing, God bless him. I'm not sure of the dates, but the Jesuits kept that curriculum going in their seminaries for some decades after it was gone from their high schools.
So I don't buy into the idea that we're too far removed from "The Education Traditionally Known As Classical" to really know what it was (which is a separate issue from whether or not we think it's still feasible, or even desirable, in our time). Christians kept the flame going over centuries -- with ebbs and flows, but always going back to the same sources -- and Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants were all part of it.
That was me that asked about classical in CM's day, thanks again...Do you educate in a CM way?
-
Tell me your Pros/Cons for having a separate school room in your house. We currently do school on the dining room table. Our downstairs is open - the Living Room, Dining Room and Kitchen are all one big room. The Family Room is attached to the kitchen by a half-wall. The Family Room could be made into a school room, but it's sort of small.
We could make it happen upstairs in a bedroom. But I don't really want to be upstairs all day - I'm always trying to do things in addition to school - laundry, dinner, etc.
So tell me about why you have decided to have a separate school room or not. Does it help everyone to stay more focused? I feel that by being at the DR table, it's too easy for everyone to get up and do something else because everything is just all right there.
I don't have a list of pros and cons, but what is in bold above is the reason I decided to no longer have a school room...We had one upstairs, and it was difficult to always have to be upstairs...I needed everyone downstairs with me so I can also do other things when needed...This will be the first time we will not have a school room, but I think it will be fine...I have one of those Ikea Trofast systems in the living room now with bins that I will keep the books we are currently in...The upstairs room is becoming a family room with a bookcase that will serve as the library for some books...Other books will go in totes in the basement until it is their turn to come upstairs, either to the library or part of our school books that year...And some other books that I am no longer fond of will be donated...
If I had a room on the first floor, right by the kitchen, I would use that...But as it is, the room on the first floor by the kitchen is the dining room, so that is what we are using...A basement room or upstairs room doesn't work for us...
-
I was impacted by the Circe thread...It helped me figure out what I want for my homeschool...
-
Me to. She has every right to stop writing, of course. And I know she said something about the Schole Sisters carrying the torch, I suppose I even agree as far as bloggers seeking to combine Charlotte Mason with Circle style Classical. She was fairly unique in that for a while, and now suddenly 4 (or is it 5) more!
But Cindy Rollins had a wealth of experience and knowledge that I'm just not seeing (so far) in the Schole Sister's posts. Lady dropped some truth on that blog. The Schole Sisters are encouraging and all, but they aren't getting down-and dirty in the details the way Ordo Amoris did. And many of them (all of them?) haven't graduated any children yet, and I do think hindsight is often more helpful than being in the trenches, as far as advice goes. The gal that writes at Amongst Lovely Things, for example, has written several times how it doesn't matter if you get "behind" in your math program. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I'm not arguing that. But I wonder if she'd speak differently if she had a highschooler? Does it still not matter?
We do lack voices of moms that have BDTD all the way through. That's what I appreciate so much about these boards, and what I loved about Ordo Amoris.
The bold above...This...I will miss Cindy's blog and am really sorry that I was late to discover it...
-
Herbart was another one. People sometimes assume that she was opposed to him, because she disagreed with his "sac theory," but she repeats some of his ideas.
As far as I can tell, about the most traditional of CM's influences was Matthew Arnold. She had great respect for him, and drew very heavily on his ideas, though she didn't always quote him directly. Coleridge was another (I'm still trying to get through a book on his thought, which I got interested in during a previous CM discussion). They were both on the slightly more conservative side in their time, but that's only relative to other strains of Victorian thought -- some of which were a lot more "out there" than we might think by looking at ordinary life in Victorian society.
I think there were some aspects of her method that were distinctive (such as the very short lessons, and "not getting between the child and the book"), but most of her overall goals, such as providing a liberal education for every child, having them read excellent literature in English, and supporting character development, were very common ones in the late 19th century. For instance, the whole system of public education in English Canada was founded on this sort of vision, via the Scottish model.
The author of the above book of makes this comment, in the introduction (p. 2):
"The transition from classics to English within liberal education was complete [by 1900], but challenges were ever present, including the beginning of the common twentieth-century notion that the best way to study human beings and achieve social salvation is not through literature, whether classical or English, but through science, especially social science in a period of challenge to the social fabric. Thus, the very ideal of classical literary humanism, even though English rather than Latin or Greek, was subject to nascent pressure at the end of the century."
It does seem that Charlotte Mason was more on the side of what he calls the "ideal of classical literary humanism," but I think it would be a stretch to describe all such systems as "different types of classical education."
"Liberal education" is the term that CM used to describe her goals. Huge amounts have been written on this subject over the last couple of centuries, and the phrase is still used in mainstream education circles today. CM, Great Books, Core Knowledge, TJE, the various "neo-classical"/Sayers-inspired methods, the various ideas promoted by CiRCE, literature-based curricula such as Sonlight, and even "quasi-unschooling while reading lots of good books," are all different, but they're all very clearly approaches to liberal education. I don't think there's any controversy about this.
I find it curious that many of her followers don't seem to want to adopt this term, and instead are heading (en masse, apparently) toward "classical education," which is a term she herself didn't use, except to describe the curriculum of the private English boys' schools of her day.
Maybe it's because the word "liberal" is considered undesirable for political or theological reasons? But people still talk about the "liberal arts," so... IDK. :confused1:
This makes sense, thanks for posting it...Liberal education as a term does make more sense...I also wonder why the move towards classical as a term...
You clearly know more about this topic than I do and I thank you :001_smile:
-
CM also taught English grammar Rod and Staff style, and drilled Greek and Latin grammar.
Cool...I teach English grammar Rod and Staff style using Rod and Staff :laugh:
-
1
-
-
This topic has been covered ad nauseam in many threads.
The bottom line:
If you want to pursue a classical education for your children and you feel you can use Charlotte Mason or pieces of CM to achieve that goal, go for it. You don't need anyone's approval or buy in. Do what works for you.
If you want to pursue a classical education for your children and you don't feel that anything from Charlotte Mason will help you meet that goal, stop bashing others who do and move along to something that you feel will work for you.
If you are simply offended by someone's use of the word classical by a definition with which you disagree, I don't know that I can help you, but I will try. Classical is just a word that has no one true definition. It may mean something different to you than to someone else. For that matter, Charlotte Mason may mean something different to you than someone else. Let it go. Release it to the universe.
HTH-
Mandy
I am enjoying this thread because I wasn't apart of the threads that took place in the past I guess...I am not offended, don't want to let it go or release it, and I am enjoying the replies...
-
3
-
-
Yeah I wish some more cm old timers would come of the woodwork with advice about college and stuff. (And not the victorian-replication people!!!) But a lot of rigor-minded people on the board are doing it, just not identifying it as a cm education imho.
That would be nice...I was really sad to see Ordo Amoris go...
-
Grammar is handled differently as Classical uses Latin primarily to teach Grammar, and CM does not...
CM also taught Latin. On her formidable List of Attainments for a 3rd grader she has "of Elementary Latin Grammar; should read fables and easy tales and say one or two books of Caesar." I suppose you may mean that BOTH teach Latin but Classical does so primarily to teach grammar and CM did it just for the language itself. That may be, though I hardly know how one learns Latin without improving ones grammar.
Yes, I meant that while Latin is taught in both methods, Latin is the primary way to learn English grammar in classical (some classical educators feel explicit English grammar instruction is unnecessary if you learn Latin from a young age) while that is not the case in CM...English grammar is taught through lessons based on the living books you are reading, not taught through Latin...
-
I didn't read all the posts, I will later when I have more time.
Classical Education was started by the Ancient Greeks or Babylonians, depending on how you count it. So, don't expect anything that's been around for thousands of years and contributed to from all over the globe to be any one thing. How could it possibly be? Here's how I classify different forms of Classical Education and I did choose to put Charlotte Mason in the Living Books category because not all Living Books based education are Classical in content or technique but no one makes the argument against twaddle better than CM. But, of course she is a type of Classical educator-not the exactly what Dorothy Sayers argued for, but it's still a form of Classical Education.
Don't waste time getting suckered into newbie, purist, rigid debates about what is Classical Education and what isn't. It's as pointless as getting into a debate about which Christian denominations and doctrines are "real Christianity" and which aren't. There are no absolute answers because no one owns the term and you don't get gold stars or merit badges from those who agree with you anyway. Just be familiar with different forms and their different distinctive characteristics and incorporate those that fit your coals and your children best. If you want to know what CM had to say about it, read CM. If you like the Circe Institute's version where you pursue truth, beauty and goodness, go pursue truth, beauty and goodness. If the Trivium matters to you, then go build it layer by layer with Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. If you want to mix and match those things, then go do it. It's all Classical in different ways.
I can see what you are saying here, but I think this is a little different...I am not saying that CM or classical is more real, better, or worse, just different...Even with Christianity, the different denominations give others a clue as to what you believe...If I tell you that I am an Orthodox Christian, you may know what that is, not know, have opinions about it or don't, but you will know that I believe something different (at least on some level) than someone who says they are (fill in the blank)...But now if I told you that two different religions are now the same because of certain similarities, you may think to yourself, "But don't they feel differently about ____?"...All types of Christianity have something in common, but they are not the same...There are even similarities between some Christian and some non Christian religions...No judgments here, just facts...People believe different things...And educators believe different things...
As far as the situation with CM, I am not saying CM is better or worse than classical...I am just stating that they have been seen as different for many years, now suddenly they are seen as the same when neither one of them has changed...Either they have been the same all along or not...Judging by the methods I see advertised as classical, and the methods I see advertised as CM, they seem different...And that is okay...No one is more real than the other...One may work better for you than the other though, and it is the combining of the two in the public arena that can confuse people...Classical is confusing enough without adding something else (which is the easiest to define) into the mix...
I just think maybe people should stop calling things "classical" ...Just leave CM as CM instead of the CM version of classical...
What are your favorite picture books?
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
I love three books by Paul O. Zelinsky - Hansel & Gretel, Rapunzel, and Rumpelstiltskin...
This Snow White...
King Midas...
The Donkey's Dream...
There are many more...I'll link more later...