I would just like to point out...because I know not everyone on this forum uses the WTM...that the quote in the article from WTM p.23 is taken out of context. The paragraph that the quote is taken from goes on to say
"Seize this early excitement. Let the child delve deep. Let him read, read, read. Don't force him to stop and reflect on it yet. Don't make him decide what he likes and doesn't like about ancient Rome; let him wallow in gladiators and chariot races. He wants to find out how things work, how ancient people lived, where Mount Vesuvius is located, and what Pompeii looked like, covered with volcanic ash. This thirst for sheer accumulation won't ever die completely, but it is more easily satisfied later on. And the wonder of that first encounter with a strange civilization will never come again."
I am not familiar with the other texts/writings that she quotes from, but knowing how she used something in the WTM out of context makes me wonder how many of the other quotes are also out of context, used to support what *this* author believes and not the original works support.
Anything out of context can be twisted to mean something else.
From the article in the original post:
"If this theory is interpreted in a rough, commonsense way, it sounds plausible. Young children amass facts: from the sounds of the letters, to the multiplication tables, to the names of a universe of entities. Notice, however, what the authors of The Well-Trained Mind mean by the “facts†acquired at the grammar stage. They say that the grammar stage (grades one through four, remember) is “the first time your child will encounter Egyptian embalming rites or the atmosphere of Venus; this is the first time he will understand what light is made of or why Americans rebelled against the British.â€23 Everything—from religious rituals, to analysis of major political events, to the most abstract discoveries in science—is placed under the heading of “facts.†The Well-Trained Mind regards it as the educator’s job to stockpile a young mind with such facts."
I don't think that I would trust any "facts" this author presents in her paper. I think she is biased...heavily...against anything that doesn't explictly agree with her point of view.