Christian Classical Educator or D. Sayers follower?

[iwka]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very interesting article which should be forwarded to all of those Christian homeschoolers who think that are classically homeschooling their children, but in reality they are following people who wrote their curriculum, started "classical" programs, co-op groups and schools after no more no less but a famous speech of a Mrs. Dorothy Sayers.

 

Just few quotes:

 

"When we hear programs and schools outside of the CLAA using the phrase "classical education", they usually mean that they're implementing ideas found in Dorothy Sayers' essay "The Lost Tools of Learning". The ideas of Sayers have nothing to do with classical education as a careful reading of her essay proves. Dorothy Sayers may have some ideas that differ from modern schools, but they differ as much from classical ideas. Call it what you wish, Dorothy Sayers is not an advocate of classical education."

 

Everything is pretty good through here, but we should never be impressed by criticism. It is always easier to identify symptoms of disease than to diagnose them truly and propose a remedy. Sayers' identification of the symptoms is fine, but her diagnosis and proposed cure are absurd.

 

We will see below that Sayers' proposed solution does nothing to remedy this problem. I would even argue that it makes it worse, for she takes nothing out of the modern curriculum, but proposes that we add more. Sayers claims that the difference is not so much content as it is emphasis. The CLAA argues that it is both the content and the emphasis that need correction. The burden of content is what leads to the deemphasizing of what is most important, just as an abundance of material goods necessarily distracts one's devotion to spiritual duties. Monks and nuns take vows of poverty for a reason.

 

She is proposing a modernized program of study that borrows the "progression" idea from the Trivium, but is re-oriented around "stages of learning" and not specific knowledge and skills. Whereas the Trivium consisted of three specific arts, she is now referring to three different stages that resemble the Trivium by way of analogy. This is NOT classical education, but something she is inventing on the spot. Moreover, they are not based on universal principles or broad observations, but on her own experiences as a child.

 

Here we have the invention of these three stages of learning: Poll-Parrot, Pert and Poetic--terms coined right here by Sayers. She is not claiming to be following the Trivium here--that was merely referred to for illustration. This three stage theory is her own invention.

 

I will stop here. Read the whole article Call it What You Wish - A Commentary on "The Lost Tools of Writing

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

[Jami]

I'm not sure why you posted about this article in the particular tone you chose. Rather than offering the link and asking for a discussion, you seem to be making a rather critical judgment from the start. Surely you can see that a less-productive conversation can be had now than might otherwise have been possible.

 

:001_huh:

 

 

I'll add that I'm personally fine with finding where shared goals and overlap can happen between various classical camps, even where I philosophically disagree. I think we all benefit by offering grace to those working at recovering a quality education for our children, be it classical or more of a traditional liberal arts. I'll link to a lecture given by Doug Wilson last summer which I found helpful for better appreciating what the Sayers model brings to the classical table. http://wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=8376

Edited June 12, 2009 by Jami

[LibraryLover]

What? Is Dorothy Wiccan or something?

[iwka]

I'm not sure why you posted about this article in the particular tone you chose. Rather than offering the link and asking for a discussion, you seem to be making a rather critical judgment from the start. Surely you can see that a less-productive conversation can be had now than might otherwise have been possible.

 

:001_huh:

Oh, I did not mean to be mocking anybody (myself including). Sorry, if it seemed that was my intention.

 

Any thoughts?

[iwka]

 

I'll add that I'm personally fine with finding where shared goals and overlap can happen between various classical camps, even where I philosophically disagree. I think we all benefit by offering grace to those working at recovering a quality education for our children, be it classical or more of a traditional liberal arts.

 

Did you read the article?

[Jami]

double post :)

[Jami]

Did you read the article?

 

I did indeed. Earlier this evening. And I agree with some of Mr. Michaels' criticism of the ages/stages application of the Trivium. But I think that Ms. Sayers did spur the beginnings of an important revival of classical education after her speech was printed in National Review where Doug Wilson, in particular, read it and later referred to it in thinking about how he wanted his own children educated. In the same way education in this country moved in stages away from classical education to its modern form (or formlessness perhaps is more apt), I think it will take stages to move back and that is happening, even in "neoclassical" education. I would tend to place TWTM in a "liberal arts and sciences" education box rather than "classical" for the most part, which I think is closer to what Sayers is calling for than a traditional medieval classical education.

 

I found the tone of the article self-serving, however, with the constant plugs for how CLAA has it right where others have messed up. So it was hard to want to engage in further discussion.

[iwka]

You do realize that this board is here to support a book based, in part, on that speech, right?

 

Sure I've read it. Yes, I know it was just a speech and I am aware of the movement that it unintentionally inspired. I am also aware of the more Latin - Centered classical approaches. WTM and others like it are generally referred to as "neo-classical" (all "classical" is neo-classical now but that is beside the point) and I think it is generally understood that this means the program is influenced by the Sayers essay.

 

 

Feel free to call it whatever you like but the quotes you posted are rather rude and inflammatory, considering where you posted them. Was your point to stir the pot or did you have a question?

 

If you are interested in this method you may like The Latin Centered Curriculum. It lays out a traditional Latin- centered classical education, not based on the Trivium.

 

oh, no..this is not going in the right direction...I did not want to offend no one...:001_unsure:

 

I have a question for Christian Classical homeschoolers. Seeing in history that Christian classical curriculum brought such bright minds, scholars, teachers, saints, philosophers, writers etc. I would like to implement the same methods in our homeschooling journey. How do one goes about that? Trying to find out how they were educated, right? So...I am looking fo people who were the originators of the Christian classical method of teaching, right?

 

Well, in the most known circles of classical methods of education Sayers' essey is quoted so many times as a base of the philosophy of teaching, that I can't just overlook it. Looking at the facts about her own education (her accomplishments as woman scholar, translator, writer is unquestionable; she was not an expert on education though...) vs. experience in teaching (almost none), I am trying to examin how come her influence in this area is so enormous and followed as classcial education premise, where in reality she is not the person to follow in that area at all.

 

My queation is: why are you following the particular author/book/methodology/curriculum (if they call themselves classical), and do you know if the theories given by the authors are well proven and by who?

 

Also, my question was not about if you read Sayers' article, but the refutation with the link I posted? Surely it is boldly said, but what if the facts presented there are true?

 

I am interested in thoughts of people who think that Dorothy Sayer's ideas were really the base of the modern classical education, and if so, why do they think so?

 

Thank You.

[Jill- OK]

My queation is: why are you following the particular author/book/methodology/curriculum (if they call themselves classical), and do you know if the theories given by the authors are well proven and by who?

 

...here's the thing; I'm not following one particular author/book/methodology/curriculum. Many here aren't. :001_smile:

 

There's a little book called (simply) Classical Education by Gene Veith (I think, anyway...don't have it in front of me) that examines a variety of ideas about classical education. (There really are several, and IMO, all are worth looking at.) I mean, you have the Latin-centered folks, the neo-classical, liberal arts folks, and the Great Conversation people, who are more in line with the thinking of Mortimer Adler.

 

"Classical" education isn't a neat, well-defined term, in other words. It can simply mean an education method espousing tried and true methods from the past. From a variety of sources. (That's what my personal definition is).

 

I am interested in thoughts of people who think that Dorothy Sayer's ideas were really the base of the modern classical education, and if so, why do they think so?

 

Well, there, I can't help you. I think her speech/ideas were a catalyst for an examination of ideals from long ago, for many people, and probably inspirational in that regard...but the base of "modern" classical education? I don't know that I'd call it that, personally. The very term "modern classical education" could be the subject of a long, thoughtful debate. :D

 

Look, I know this might seem simplistic...but what's wrong with examining a variety of sources and doing what makes sense? I don't get hung up on what a true classical education is, because that's not the main thing for me. The main thing is educating my kids in what I believe is the best way. That's why I read classical educators, Maria Montessori, Charlotte Mason, and others, and sift the ideas through my Christian, er, sifter. ;-)

 

Whatever comes out, that's what I do. I don't care what anyone else calls it. ;)

[ElizabethB]

double post, sorry.

[ElizabethB]

For a true classical education, you would learn to read with Latin first, with a syllabary. Then, you would learn to read English with a syllabary. And, waxed tablets.

 

As Geraldine L. Rodgers says in her article "Why Noah Webster's Way Was the Right Way,"

 

The teaching of beginning reading remained unchanged until the eighteenth century A. D. Children first learned the alphabet, and then learned the syllabary, but they continued to spell each syllable as it was practiced, using the current letter names (which still did little to demonstrate their sounds: ell, oh, gee = log). It was only after they learned the syllabary that they read connected texts, usually Latin prayers after about 300 A. D. They then read those texts syllable by syllable until they became proficient readers.

 

Until the sixteenth century A. D. in English-speaking countries, beginning reading was taught in Latin, and, in much of Europe, beginning reading continued to be taught in Latin until the eighteenth century. Since beginning reader did not yet know Latin, obviously they were reading print purely by its “soundâ€, and not by its “meaning†(such as Pa - ter nos - ter for Our Father.)

 

I tried the syllabary in English and Webster's Speller, but was not brave enough (crazy enough?) to try Latin first.

 

I do like small white boards, kind of like a modern waxed tablet.

[iwka]

For a true classical education, you would learn to read with Latin first, with a syllabary. Then, you would learn to read English with a syllabary. And, waxed tablets.

 

As Geraldine L. Rodgers says in her article "Why Noah Webster's Way Was the Right Way,"

 

Quote:

The teaching of beginning reading remained unchanged until the eighteenth century A. D. Children first learned the alphabet, and then learned the syllabary, but they continued to spell each syllable as it was practiced, using the current letter names (which still did little to demonstrate their sounds: ell, oh, gee = log). It was only after they learned the syllabary that they read connected texts, usually Latin prayers after about 300 A. D. They then read those texts syllable by syllable until they became proficient readers.

 

Until the sixteenth century A. D. in English-speaking countries, beginning reading was taught in Latin, and, in much of Europe, beginning reading continued to be taught in Latin until the eighteenth century. Since beginning reader did not yet know Latin, obviously they were reading print purely by its “soundâ€, and not by its “meaning†(such as Pa - ter nos - ter for Our Father.)

I tried the syllabary in English and Webster's Speller, but was not brave enough (crazy enough?) to try Latin first.

 

I do like small white boards, kind of like a modern waxed tablet.

 

Latin first? That's what they are doing here.

[Jill- OK]

...I don't get the CLAA's huge problem with Sayer's suggested methodology; she says herself that what she's suggesting is a modified version of classical study.

 

So what? So someone has an idea to marry child development with an old idea. ::Shrug::

 

(I'm not trying to make light of your concern about this...just wondering why they have such a problem with it. It's not like the word "classical" is copyrighted, lol, or has these specific definitions when you look it up in the dictionary. A lot of what we refer to as "classical" music is more accurately Baroque, but doesn't it seem odd to not consider Bach or Vivaldi "classical" composers? I know that's not an airtight comparison, but it illustrates how I feel when I see conversations about what's "classical education" and what isn't. Tomato, tomahtoe. ;))

[iwka]

...I don't get the CLAA's huge problem with Sayer's suggested methodology; she says herself that what she's suggesting is a modified version of classical study.

 

So what? So someone has an idea to marry child development with an old idea. ::Shrug::

 

(I'm not trying to make light of your concern about this...just wondering why they have such a problem with it. It's not like the word "classical" is copyrighted, lol, or has these specific definitions when you look it up in the dictionary. A lot of what we refer to as "classical" music is more accurately Baroque, but doesn't it seem odd to not consider Bach or Vivaldi "classical" composers? I know that's not an airtight comparison, but it illustrates how I feel when I see conversations about what's "classical education" and what isn't. Tomato, tomahtoe. ;))

 

I am looking for the answer, which method is the one that produced the great Christian minds of the previous centuries (like Aquinas, Jerome, Augustine, Ignatius, John of the Cross, just to mention the few giants)? Surely they were talented, disciplined and focused but there had to be a teacher there. What this teacher was teaching, how and why?

 

I don't want to waist my time on something that is not proven, but invented because of the needs or cultural relevancy, I guess, but I am willing to risk a lot to find the way that will lead to one and ultimate truth, God himself.

 

The question is about content and methodology and what is it based on.

[ElizabethB]

Latin first? That's what they are doing here.

 

But it sounds like they are not using a syllabary.

 

The syllabaries are very powerful.

 

It would be great to start with a Latin syllabary and then use an English syllabary and then a Speller.

Edited June 12, 2009 by ElizabethB

[Lovedtodeath]

true classical education[/i] is, because that's not the main thing for me. The main thing is educating my kids in what I believe is the best way. I don't care what anyone else calls it. ;)

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

okay, how many smileys are allowed? I will just say AMEN!

[Lovedtodeath]

I am looking for the answer, which method is the one that produced the great Christian minds of the previous centuries (like Aquinas, Jerome, Augustine, Ignatius, John of the Cross, just to mention the few giants)? Surely they were talented, disciplined and focused but there had to be a teacher there. What this teacher was teaching, how and why?

 

I don't want to waist my time on something that is not proven, but invented because of the needs or cultural relevancy, I guess, but I am willing to risk a lot to find the way that will lead to one and ultimate truth, God himself.

 

The question is about content and methodology and what is it based on.

Oh I see. I had the same question. The best answer I got was that young boys attended school 10 hours a day, but I didn't really get anything else.

 

I am avoiding writing up Nebuchadnezzer, can ya'll tell? :lol:

[Rosie_0801]

I don't think you're going to find the one true path of classical education because it is not something that comes in a box, but an ongoing conversation. (Or dictation exercise.) Also, the medieval definition of an educated person isn't all that is required these days. I don't think it can be cut and pasted like that. Do you think those great minds of the past would be making great achievements if Dr Who dumped them here in the 21st century? Or in each others' times and places? I think their teachers did what we do now; take the best of what we have inherited and pass it on.

 

Interesting thread, though.

 

Rosie

Edited June 12, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[ElizabethB]

I don't think you're going to find the one true path of classical education because it is not something that comes in a box, but an ongoing conversation. (Or dictation exercise.) Also, the medieval definition of an educated person isn't all that is required these days. I don't think it can be cut and pasted like that. Do you think those great minds of the past would be making great achievements if Dr Who dumped them here in the 21st century? Or in each others' times and places?

 

Interesting thread, though.

 

Rosie

 

Dr Who!!! :lol: :lol:

[Melissa B]

But it sounds like they are not using a syllabary.

 

The syllabaries are very powerful.

 

It would be great to start with a Latin syllabary and then use an English syllabary and then a Speller.

 

Actually, that is exactly how it is done.

 

I find it very comforting that you approve of the method. :) I know beginning reading/phonics is an area of strength for you and I don't know much about it myself. I taught my first two girls on Hooked on Phonics because I picked it up at a garage sale :001_huh: Luckily it has worked fine for them. My third dd is taking the petty school reading and it does use the syllabary you linked.

[ElizabethB]

Actually, that is exactly how it is done.

 

I find it very comforting that you approve of the method. :) I know beginning reading/phonics is an area of strength for you and I don't know much about it myself. I taught my first two girls on Hooked on Phonics because I picked it up at a garage sale :001_huh: Luckily it has worked fine for them. My third dd is taking the petty school reading and it does use the syllabary you linked.

 

That's awesome!

 

HOP works for a lot of people, but it, like anything with sight words, will produce some failures, as well. I'm glad your girls were not among the failures.

 

Do they follow the syllabary with a Speller? If so, Webster's or Dilworths or another?

 

Interestingly, in my surveys of schools, Catholic schools are doing the best overall in terms of producing good readers, even those that don't use a syllabary.:)

Edited June 12, 2009 by ElizabethB

[Rosie_0801]

Dr Who!!! :lol: :lol:

 

He's the only dude I know of with a time machine :001_unsure::blush:

[Jill- OK]

Do you think those great minds of the past would be making great achievements if Dr Who dumped them here in the 21st century?

 

I do sort of think that the type of mind training they received, their sort of education, was the kind that would have served them well in any situation/time/space continuum. (LOL)

 

I believe in the power of Latin for training the mind, I believe in the formal study of logic and rhetoric. I believe that the skills you get from this type of education prepare you well for a number of eventualities, and computer literacy and the many other "needs" for this age are much more easily/quickly learned, later.

 

I just don't know that we can accurately replicate Augustine's entire education in this day and age without some serious loss.

 

Loss of connection to this world. The twenty-first century.

 

Augustine didn't have a TV. He didn't have a burning need to play volleyball, and excell at it (I'm guessing, lol.). He didn't have buddies to talk to on the phone or catch up with every day on Facebook. And I don't know that his education was all that much fun for him. Not that my children have to have a continual circus, but I do want their time at home to be more enjoyable than some of the stories you read about medieval school situations. :001_smile:

 

(Speaking of that...doesn't anyone else wonder if these great minds were people who were meant for intellectual greatness, anyway, and even the mind-numbing work load of an ancient form of education couldn't hold them back? I honestly don't know that my kids, bright as they are, are mini-Augustines in the making, if I only get the formula right. There were probably plenty of D students in the "class" of Aquinas, that simply didn't get famous, lol. Everyone in the ancient/medieval world who was educated was getting the same education, but we still seem to have the same ratio of great thinkers for every age. There might be a system that's more likely to produce a great thinker--and as I said above, I believe that the "classical" system is the closest to a timeless one--but that doesn't mean it works on every kid, in other words.)

 

And while "cultural relevance" is generally spoken as a dirty word, I don't think there's anything wrong with a Christian living in the world, and being knowledgeable about it--even enjoying it a little--as long as he's not fundamentally "of" it.

 

I think that training a kid to think doesn't always equate him/her becoming a thinker, unfortunately.

 

For that, I think the teacher has to inspire. Stir up desire. The method is important, yes, but not nearly so much as the subjects and the intent. (IMO).

 

I want them to examine God's word on their own, so I teach them to read. I want them to think critically, so I teach them logic. I want them to be able to express themselves well, so we learn to write and speak properly. (Rhetoric)

 

But in order to put that information/training to the proper use, I have to inspire them to love God. That's something I believe is a strictly individual thing. I don't know that I can get my answers for that from looking at someone else's education. Someone else might be able to, but I'm convinced that the direction of my children's spiritual educations is something I have to seek guidance for, on my own, on a regular basis.

 

I wish there were an easier answer, but I don't know that there is one. (Or, maybe I haven't come across it, yet. I'll keep looking at this thread, in case someone can point me to it. :-)

[Jill- OK]

The syllabaries are very powerful.

 

But can you explain why it's more powerful than a simple phonics program?

[Ibbygirl]

He's the only dude I know of with a time machine :001_unsure::blush:

 

 

You're forgetting H.G. Wells! hehe But then again he didn't have a cool theme song like Dr. Who. ;) :D

[ElizabethB]

But can you explain why it's more powerful than a simple phonics program?

 

It teaches multi-syllable words divided up by these syllables.

 

My daughter was reading at a 3rd grade level with a regular phonics program, after 5 months of Webster's Speller, she could read a the 12th grade level.

 

Before using Webster, my remedial students were mostly at grade level or a few 1 grade level above their grade.

 

After Webster, 4 of my last 17 remedial students were more than 1 grade level above their current grade.

 

It teaches ba be bi bo bu by (ba says bay as in ba-ker), ab eb ib ob ub. (You learn these with phonics, but learn them so well they are automatic, and learn to spell them all.)

 

ca ce ci co cu cy and sca sce sci sco scu scy were especially powerful for my daughter. I had spent a lot of time on c as s before i, e, and y, but she didn't totally get it until she memorized these syllables in isolation. After she got the syllables down, she never missed another c as s word.

 

At the end of the speller, they are reading 5 to 6 syllable words. And, the arrangement of words by accent pattern helps them learn which syllables to schwa. This allows a young student or an older ESL student to learn the pattern of English words they have not yet seen or heard.

 

I didn't have my daughter spell many of the 2+ syllable words, but she did read a lot of them. (I also did not have her read some of the more obscure 3+ syllable words.)

[ElizabethB]

You're forgetting H.G. Wells! hehe But then again he didn't have a cool theme song like Dr. Who. ;) :D

 

You beat me to it!

 

Actually, a lot of sci-fi has time machines. I have read some on this list, and also others that did not make the list:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel_in_science_fiction

 

I just recently read one by Michael Chrichton that contained very interesting historical details about 15th century France, it is called Timeline, I don't know why it didn't make the list, he's a popular author.

[Ibbygirl]

You beat me to it!

 

Actually, a lot of sci-fi has time machines. I have read some on this list, and also others that did not make the list:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel_in_science_fiction

 

I just recently read one by Michael Chrichton that contained very interesting historical details about 15th century France, it is called Timeline, I don't know why it didn't make the list, he's a popular author.

 

 

LOL Sorry ma'am. Didn't mean to beat you out. :) Didn't there used to be a t.v. show many many moons ago where they would travel through time? I cannot for the life of me remember the title though. I'm guessing it would have been in the 80's. BTW, it wasn't Dr. Who, it was an American show.

[Rosie_0801]

You cultural sophisticates have put me to shame. The other time machine stuff I could think of was the antics in "Red Dwarf" but I didn't know if you Americans had seen it...

 

Hmm.

Rosie

[Ibbygirl]

You cultural sophisticates have put me to shame. The other time machine stuff I could think of was the antics in "Red Dwarf" but I didn't know if you Americans had seen it...

 

Hmm.

Rosie

 

 

ROFL :lol::lol::lol: I dont' think I have EVER been called a "cultural sophisticate" before! My idea of "the classics" would be Monty Python's Holy Grail and rock and roll from the late 60's and 70's hehehe I think that bars me forever from being sophisticated. hehehe

 

Ay, but we are shamelessly hijacking Iwka's thread aren't we?

 

Bardzo przepraszam, Iwka! :grouphug:

[Rosie_0801]

Or is it przepraszam bardzo? It's djekuje bardzo, so why would it be bardzo przepraszam?

 

Still hijacking, but thinking Iwka will forgive a Polish language hijack.

 

 

Rosie- not much of a speller in Polish...

[Ibbygirl]

Or is it przepraszam bardzo? It's djekuje bardzo, so why would it be bardzo przepraszam?

 

Still hijacking, but thinking Iwka will forgive a Polish language hijack.

 

 

Rosie- not much of a speller in Polish...

 

 

Nie wiem. Nie mowie dobrze po polsku ale... the Polish language course that I have to study at home has a dialogue where the guy says "bardzo przepraszam" I always figured that was correct, but what do I know! I"m not a cultural sophisticate or anything. ;) :D

 

What is the correct way to say it, Iwka??

[Happy]

LOL Sorry ma'am. Didn't mean to beat you out. :) Didn't there used to be a t.v. show many many moons ago where they would travel through time? I cannot for the life of me remember the title though. I'm guessing it would have been in the 80's. BTW, it wasn't Dr. Who, it was an American show.

 

Quantum Leap, maybe? Sam gets sent into different people to change a specific moment in their past....their was a computer named Ziggy...

 

I really, really love popping into a thread on the nuances of classical education and finding mentions of time travel and sci-fi. That's classical I can truly get involved with...

[iwka]

You do realize that this board is here to support a book based, in part, on that speech, right?

 

 

 

I do. That's why I am asking questions here, since it seems that if you follow someone's advice, you would know better what are the sources of someone's inspirations, which arguments do you consider true and reasonable, tested and wise.

 

If WTM follows somewhat D. Seyers' essey specifically, I came to the right source, correct?

[ConnieB]

LOL Sorry ma'am. Didn't mean to beat you out. :) Didn't there used to be a t.v. show many many moons ago where they would travel through time? I cannot for the life of me remember the title though. I'm guessing it would have been in the 80's. BTW, it wasn't Dr. Who, it was an American show.

 

 

The Voyagers?

[iwka]

...here's the thing; I'm not following one particular author/book/methodology/curriculum. Many here aren't. :001_smile:

 

On which base then do you make choices?

 

There's a little book called (simply) Classical Education by Gene Veith (I think, anyway...don't have it in front of me) that examines a variety of ideas about classical education. (There really are several, and IMO, all are worth looking at.) I mean, you have the Latin-centered folks, the neo-classical, liberal arts folks, and the Great Conversation people, who are more in line with the thinking of Mortimer Adler.

 

I have looked at their blog and at the summary of the book. Are they presenting the history of the American Classical education from the origins or as it was brought to America only in the 16th/17th century?

 

"Classical" education isn't a neat, well-defined term, in other words. It can simply mean an education method espousing tried and true methods from the past. From a variety of sources. (That's what my personal definition is).

 

That WAS also my personal definition, but it's the same like using a word "love" for very different meanings and assuming that we have common understanding.

 

 

 

Well, there, I can't help you. I think her speech/ideas were a catalyst for an examination of ideals from long ago, for many people, and probably inspirational in that regard...but the base of "modern" classical education? I don't know that I'd call it that, personally. The very term "modern classical education" could be the subject of a long, thoughtful debate. :D

 

Her speech caused a stir that seems to cause more confusion then clarification. This is what I learned from the article posted. Again, I would like to follow the originator of the idea, not the writer who is frustrated by the failure but has no solutions.

 

Defining saves time and energy, since then we know who is who and what is what. Axioms, definitions are needed to discuss things. Jesus for Muslim and for Christian means totally different people.

 

Where are such debates posted and offered?

 

Look, I know this might seem simplistic...but what's wrong with examining a variety of sources and doing what makes sense? I don't get hung up on what a true classical education is, because that's not the main thing for me. The main thing is educating my kids in what I believe is the best way. That's why I read classical educators, Maria Montessori, Charlotte Mason, and others, and sift the ideas through my Christian, er, sifter. ;-)

 

Nothing wrong with examining. The problem is when it comes to picking what is true, therefore right. We all want the best, we are homeschooling! I will not even go there, if these two ladies were classical educators, since I know little about them.

 

Whatever comes out, that's what I do. I don't care what anyone else calls it. ;)

 

I care.

Edited June 12, 2009 by iwka

[iwka]

 

So what? So someone has an idea to marry child development with an old idea.

 

I am not sure if that was her intention. I am not sure if she was a specialist in either of these, much less to even make that connection.

 

(I'm not trying to make light of your concern about this...just wondering why they have such a problem with it. It's not like the word "classical" is copyrighted, lol, or has these specific definitions when you look it up in the dictionary. A lot of what we refer to as "classical" music is more accurately Baroque, but doesn't it seem odd to not consider Bach or Vivaldi "classical" composers? I know that's not an airtight comparison, but it illustrates how I feel when I see conversations about what's "classical education" and what isn't. Tomato, tomahtoe. ;))

 

Confusion in terminology creates confusion in minds, politics, religions etc

[iwka]

But it sounds like they are not using a syllabary.

 

The syllabaries are very powerful.

 

It would be great to start with a Latin syllabary and then use an English syllabary and then a Speller.

 

I don't know if they use syllabary or not. I know they are trying to follow the path laid out centuries ago.

[iwka]

I don't think you're going to find the one true path of classical education because it is not something that comes in a box, but an ongoing conversation. (Or dictation exercise.)

 

Evolving to a better way (meaning improving what is already there, not combining random things and call it the same thing) of doing things? I am all for it. We learn and inherit from the previous generations.

 

Also, the medieval definition of an educated person isn't all that is required these days.

 

That's why in the late 19th or beginning of the 20th century Harvard had to lower the standards of enrolling students.

 

I don't think it can be cut and pasted like that. Do you think those great minds of the past would be making great achievements if Dr Who dumped them here in the 21st century?

 

That is exactly what I think. They would blow us away and show us our shallowness, narrow-mindedness, pride and vanity. That would take few years or decades. In exchange, we would teach them how to use washing machines, computers and cars. That would take weeks. :001_smile: Oh, and they would contribute greatly into our modern debates in every area of life, nit because they would have particular knowledge of the specifics, but because they know how to think and reason.

 

I think their teachers did what we do now;

 

I totally doubt it. Our teachers are following bits and pieces of the previous generation, who had bits and pieces from esseys like Mrs. Sayers'.

 

So far I have found one good book that explains what and how they did it.

 

take the best of what we have inherited and pass it on.

 

First I would need to find that best. I am on this quest. God help me!

 

Interesting thread, though.

 

Rosie

thanks

[Jami]

I apologize for misunderstanding your question, Iwka. Thank you for offering clarification about the type of discussion you were hoping for. :)

 

It can start to feel overwhelming, can't it? I've read quite a few books on classical learning and listened to many lectures and it gets harder and harder to see one straight, clear, how-to path the farther down the rabbit hole I go. But I think that's okay. Classical education is less about what exactly is studied (though I firmly believe in the medeival trivium and quadrivium progression for how to train a mind) and more about the end. It's meant to be more about the process than the ends. Modern education is about ends, about "application", classical education is about cultivation (like slow, timely farming) wisdom and virtue. The methods and tools that have been honed for that purpose over centuries do include the medieval trivium and quadrivium, but those are not the ends in themselves.

 

I really recommend you go and spend time at the Circe Institute website. On the left margin there are links about what a Classical Education is, it's definitions and principles (you often have to scroll down to find the information, there's some formatting issues). Circe is doing the very thing you're trying to do here. Get at the heart of Christian, Classical education...see what is at the base of it and how can it be successfully recovered.

 

http://circeinstitute.com/

 

Also, I have found David Hicks' book "Norms and Nobility" to be the best to be less about exact content or tools and more about the teacher/student discipleship relationship toward the end of noble thinking and acting.

 

You're just not going to find easy answers, the question is beyond that. You have to go back to things like "what does it mean to be educated?" and start from there. And then paralysis sets in (ask me how I know?!)

 

So there has to be a bit of disconnect I think, where for your own children, at this time, you let go of finding perfect a little bit, of understanding it all, and find a solid, practical method that works. They need to learn to write, so you find a writing program and consistently use it. And don't worry about if it's "classical enough". Same with math. Same with grammar. You children need to meet great minds and think great ideas, so yes, Mr. Michaels, the literature matters. Read Charlotte Mason for her encouraging words about the child as a living mind in need of living ideas. :)

 

But THEN while your children (or mine in this scenario) are using Rod and Staff Grammar and a separate Latin program because of my own deficiencies, continue to read and learn and make adjustments to how you teach.

 

I appreciate how many in the Classical, Christian school movement have emphasized this is not a one-generation deal, recovering these lost tools. It too centuries to do away with the ideals of a classical education (really you'd have to go back to pre-Enlightenment to begin to see the unraveling), none of us had this education that formed the minds of Augustine and Aquinas, Calvin and Lewis...BUT maybe, just maybe, our children will be able to recover a bit more of what has been lost.

 

And that, is much too much thinking on a Friday morning. LOL. I need a muffin.

[Faithr]

This is an interesting thread! I wish I knew how to quote! Anyway, the thing is that back in the good old days, most people didn't get a great education. It was for a select few. Nowadays we want to extend education to everybody. That means we need to serve those of all stripes, academics as well as those who are meant for occupations that don't require such a high level of knowledge. We want to educate the kids who would never make it in a traditional classical school as well as the ones who are brilliant and can take to it like ducks to water. I think that changes the whole perspective; that now we are concerned about how to go about educating the masses.

 

Also, if you've ever read Augustine's Confessions, he complains about all the caning they did in the schools to get the kids to learn all that Latin, etc He, btw, showed his intellectual brilliance at an early age and so his parents worked hard to get him into 'good' schools.

 

While I am very enamored with classical education, especially of the LCC interpretation of it, I do think that it is foolish to go to extremes when trying to emulate it. We do live in different times, with different expectations, different needs. I like the idea of adapting the idea of a traditional classical education to the times we live in now. To me, focusing on being a purist about it, defeats the purpose. I don't care for idealogy anyway, it always gets in the way of reality. Everything has to conform to the ideologist's interpretation of reality instead of the other way around. I think there are many variations of ways to get a good education. TWTM is based on the way SWB was educated. She seems like a pretty successful leader in our society today. I've heard her interviewed on the radio; I can find her books at the local B&N. I'd say she's done fine, yet she didn't get the exact type of education that CLAA proposes is the only good classical education. And frankly, when someone has to knock other methods in order to promote their own, as is done on the CLAA website, well, it turns me off.

[Melissa B]

Do they follow the syllabary with a Speller? If so, Webster's or Dilworths or another?

 

 

I don't know. My dd is part of the test group. The petty school reading program will not be complete and available until late summer or so. I know it teaches the Latin syllabary followed by English. I haven't yet seen the end to the program.

My degree being in secondary education, I know very little at all about early childhood education. All of the research I have done on the Michael's program has pointed to a very solid, complete and well-researched program put together by a qualified, devout and motivated family. The secondary level material agrees with my own research and thoughts on education - so I have been utilizing the early reading class strictly on faith. It is good to know other knowledgeable educators find the base to the program is solid and I look forward to seeing where he goes from here.

[LibraryLover]

You're forgetting H.G. Wells! hehe But then again he didn't have a cool theme song like Dr. Who. ;) :D

 

 

Artemis Fowl. He travelled to his own past. :lurk5:

[Melissa B]

I'd say she's done fine, yet she didn't get the exact type of education that CLAA proposes is the only good classical education. And frankly, when someone has to knock other methods in order to promote their own, as is done on the CLAA website, well, it turns me off.

 

I don't really think Mr. Michael was trying to say CLAA is the only 'good' education, I think he is saying it is the only 'true' classical education as in attempting to replicate the education (and remember this is a Catholic program) of the saints and great religious leaders as far back as he can go (Moses.) I believe he is stating that those who are attempting to give their children a Christian, classical education as was given the religious greats of the past are being misled in thinking the current 'classical' programs will get them there. And, I'm really just trying to clarify. It is not my intention to insult SWB, a woman whom I hold in great regard, and on her own forums. The fact that this discussion can be held here says volumes. I personally think she provides a solid liberal arts education and truly appreciate all she does for the homeschool community.

 

Mr. Michael was promoting his own curriculum on HIS site by explaining in detail how it differs from a well-known essay used as support for the current classical education movement. SWB has essays on her website (site resources page) explaining how her curriculum is different from other well-known classical/CM approaches as well. And yes, I will happily admit Mr. Michael writes a more direct contrast while SWB writes with much tact. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

I do sort of think that the type of mind training they received, their sort of education, was the kind that would have served them well in any situation/time/space continuum. (LOL)

 

I believe in the power of Latin for training the mind, I believe in the formal study of logic and rhetoric. I believe that the skills you get from this type of education prepare you well for a number of eventualities, and computer literacy and the many other "needs" for this age are much more easily/quickly learned, later.

 

I just don't know that we can accurately replicate Augustine's entire education in this day and age without some serious loss.

 

Loss of connection to this world. The twenty-first century.

 

Augustine didn't have a TV. He didn't have a burning need to play volleyball, and excell at it (I'm guessing, lol.). He didn't have buddies to talk to on the phone or catch up with every day on Facebook. And I don't know that his education was all that much fun for him. Not that my children have to have a continual circus, but I do want their time at home to be more enjoyable than some of the stories you read about medieval school situations. :001_smile:

 

(Speaking of that...doesn't anyone else wonder if these great minds were people who were meant for intellectual greatness, anyway, and even the mind-numbing work load of an ancient form of education couldn't hold them back? I honestly don't know that my kids, bright as they are, are mini-Augustines in the making, if I only get the formula right. There were probably plenty of D students in the "class" of Aquinas, that simply didn't get famous, lol. Everyone in the ancient/medieval world who was educated was getting the same education, but we still seem to have the same ratio of great thinkers for every age. There might be a system that's more likely to produce a great thinker--and as I said above, I believe that the "classical" system is the closest to a timeless one--but that doesn't mean it works on every kid, in other words.)

 

And while "cultural relevance" is generally spoken as a dirty word, I don't think there's anything wrong with a Christian living in the world, and being knowledgeable about it--even enjoying it a little--as long as he's not fundamentally "of" it.

 

I think that training a kid to think doesn't always equate him/her becoming a thinker, unfortunately.

 

For that, I think the teacher has to inspire. Stir up desire. The method is important, yes, but not nearly so much as the subjects and the intent. (IMO).

 

I want them to examine God's word on their own, so I teach them to read. I want them to think critically, so I teach them logic. I want them to be able to express themselves well, so we learn to write and speak properly. (Rhetoric)

 

But in order to put that information/training to the proper use, I have to inspire them to love God. That's something I believe is a strictly individual thing. I don't know that I can get my answers for that from looking at someone else's education. Someone else might be able to, but I'm convinced that the direction of my children's spiritual educations is something I have to seek guidance for, on my own, on a regular basis.

:-)

Great post!

[Georgiana Daniels]

The Don Potter website is a treasure. I downloaded the Webster's Speller, but now I'm curious when to start using it. My four-year-old is working on the Bob books and the Now I'm Reading. Should we have been doing the Webster's to learn syllables first?

 

LOL, now I'm confused....

[ladydusk]

The more Classical Ed books I read, the more impressed I am with WTM, and I fell in love with it first. However, I don't think that means I should stop learning about this form of education. The way SWB & JW have explained Sayers and made a framework makes *sense* to me and, clearly, produces clear and excellent thinkers. When I first started studying homeschooling, I read WTM and was sold, so I continued reading about Classical Education (and am still reading: I have Poetic Knowledge, Norms & Nobility, and a couple of books from Canon Press on my list to read). What I have learned is that I'm gleaning my philosophy from lots of people and that, as SWB said in Cincinnati, we're all neo-classical and that's as it should be.

 

You might be interested in Wisdom & Eloquence whose authors are definitely not in the "Ages and Stages" camp rather they look at the Trivium and Quadrivium and attempt to put it in a framework of core disciplines to be studied 12-K (figure out where you want to end up and plan backwards.) They are really not impressed with Sayers and I actually think they're a bit harsh when discussing the Lost Tools of Learning. However, the book has helped me as I develop my framework for our schooling and there is a lot of great information in the book. Ch 4 (I think) is entirely about developing a day school atmosphere, so not as applicable to homeschoolers.

 

One of my favorite Classical Ed books is a little pamphlet from Dr. Perrin at Classical Academic Press called An Introduction to Classical Education: A Guide for Parents. This little pamphlet does its best (and I think it succeeds nicely) to bridge the gap between the "Ages & Stages" folks and the "The Trivium is a set of Disciplines" folks. His talk on the history of CCE is also excellent in content (although he isn't the most engaging speaker ever).

 

After my reading these things, I think my biggest concern is utilizing teaching methods that are clasically accurate (maybe without the caning, though, [laughing]) copywork, dictation, narration, rote memorization, recitation, socratic questioning, etc. Really engaging the learner and helping them to think. The scope & sequence can be built and be pretty straightforward (even without ever having coursework in Latin, rhetoric, logic, etc.), the instruction of that scope & sequence I think is where the nitty-gritty is.

[KristenS]

May not matter at this point in the thread, but somewhere earlier someone questioned Dorothy Sayers' religious background? To the best of my knowledge, she was Anglican. Christian, anyway, and a staunch one. I love her essays. And her mystery novels. :)

 

(And man, do you have to be educated to read some of her novels today! Obscure quotes, characters lapsing into French or Latin at the drop of a hat, and stuff like that. But they are good reads anyway.) :)

[Jill- OK]

I hope you find what you're looking for. I think I've contributed all that I can to the conversation, but I'll read the rest of the replies with interest. We're obviously pursuing a similar path, but with a different priority.

 

I wish you well in your journey!

[Faithr]

Dorothy Sayers was a convert to Catholicism.