Christian Classical Educator or D. Sayers follower?

[LibraryLover]

Dorothy Sayers was a convert to Catholicism.

 

 

Well...everyone knows Catholics are not real Christians. :D:lurk5: Mystery solved.

[Caitilin]

Here's my difficulty with the ideas you're presenting here: we CONSTANTLY use the same words in more than one way, we constantly equivocate, either intentionally or not. It's not enough to simply say that we must all use the same definition of a word to prevent confusion--nearly anything we say can be construed in several ways (witness all the misunderstandings that occur in cyberspace that wouldn't occur IRL, because of tone of voice!).

 

It appears to me from my reading of your posts in this thread that you are approaching this question from a Catholic viewpoint; but do you really anticipate that your Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, secular, et. al. sisters have precisely the same definitions of words, concepts, and goals that you do? Even the word "saint" has different connotations, depending on the branch of Christianity that one follows.

 

It seems to me that there's very little possibility of convincing us all that we are not authentically Classical in our approach to educating our children because we don't use the education that was provided to St. Augustine and others--and of convincing us that it is more important to be authentically Classical than it is to do something that works for us as teachers, and our children as students.

 

In addition, the privileging of this perfect Classical education negates the achievements of other great thinkers who were not given the education you espouse. Lincoln was certainly not the recipient of the education you desire for your children--does that mean that he was not a great thinker? What about other great saints and Doctors of the Church? As a woman, St. Catherine of Sienna was certainly not given the education afforded to Augustine. Is she somehow less in possession of the Truth of the Divine?

 

Finally, none of us received a true Classical education in the Augustinian sense; how can we really implement something that we not only didn't receive, but is very distant from our own pool of knowledge and experience? It's all very well to read Augustine's description of his education and to learn from it; however, if we have nothing more to go on than that, we might as well be trying to teach calculus to our children when we ourselves have yet to grasp long division.

 

I believe that it's better to do well what we can than to fail miserably by striving toward an unreachable ideal.

 

Forgive me if I have offended. I certainly did not intend offense to anyone here. :grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, if Dorothy Sayers had not converted to Catholicism, then I wouldn't think that anything she had to say had any worth whatsoever and will thus remove it from my brain and boycott all of her materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

J/K!!! ;)

[Jami]

Here's my difficulty with the ideas you're presenting here: we CONSTANTLY use the same words in more than one way, we constantly equivocate, either intentionally or not. It's not enough to simply say that we must all use the same definition of a word to prevent confusion--nearly anything we say can be construed in several ways (witness all the misunderstandings that occur in cyberspace that wouldn't occur IRL, because of tone of voice!).

 

It appears to me from my reading of your posts in this thread that you are approaching this question from a Catholic viewpoint; but do you really anticipate that your Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, secular, et. al. sisters have precisely the same definitions of words, concepts, and goals that you do? Even the word "saint" has different connotations, depending on the branch of Christianity that one follows.

 

It seems to me that there's very little possibility of convincing us all that we are not authentically Classical in our approach to educating our children because we don't use the education that was provided to St. Augustine and others--and of convincing us that it is more important to be authentically Classical than it is to do something that works for us as teachers, and our children as students.

 

In addition, the privileging of this perfect Classical education negates the achievements of other great thinkers who were not given the education you espouse. Lincoln was certainly not the recipient of the education you desire for your children--does that mean that he was not a great thinker? What about other great saints and Doctors of the Church? As a woman, St. Catherine of Sienna was certainly not given the education afforded to Augustine. Is she somehow less in possession of the Truth of the Divine?

 

Finally, none of us received a true Classical education in the Augustinian sense; how can we really implement something that we not only didn't receive, but is very distant from our own pool of knowledge and experience? It's all very well to read Augustine's description of his education and to learn from it; however, if we have nothing more to go on than that, we might as well be trying to teach calculus to our children when we ourselves have yet to grasp long division.

 

I believe that it's better to do well what we can than to fail miserably by striving toward an unreachable ideal.

 

Forgive me if I have offended. I certainly did not intend offense to anyone here. :grouphug:

 

Wonderful post, Caitilin.

[Avila]

Apologizing ahead of time for being blunt and expressing what is ultimately just my own opinion, but am I the only one having trouble sorting through exactly what Mr. Michael is trying to say? I can't get past what I feel like is an arrogant, my-way-only attitude. And to be honest, he doesn't appear to have a very high regard for homeschooling, in that it is all on CLAA and his teachers and his methods, period. Parents don't choose, and they don't teach. They merely monitor.

 

I understand that he doesn't agree with Sayers (or any of the other homeschooling ideas), but I feel like his answer is that you follow him completely instead of following any of them -- never thinking for yourself. With WTM, I feel like I am in charge of what I am doing, even if I follow all of her suggestions, which I don't. SWB is a consultant and my primary "spine", but I pick and choose from other homeschooling methods and publishers too. So maybe my issue is with control in general? I just don't trust anybody who claims to have all the answers and tears down anyone else who doesn't agree. Things are rarely that clear.

 

BTW, I am Catholic and could enroll under his requirements, but I just don't feel like I want to or need to. I am not saying there is anything wrong with finding someone you agree with and following them, but I personally want to think that through without all the vitriol. How is following him blindly any better than any of the other options out there? And I don't think it is just the methodology because I don't get the same vibe from LCC at all. I think for me, CLAA just seems angry and self-serving, and I am responding badly to that instead of what he is trying to say.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Asenik

[Jugglin'5]

I've always read that she was a rather traditional, orthodox Anglican. Does anybody have a source for the claim that she was Catholic? Did she convert later in life?

[LibraryLover]

I've always read that she was a rather traditional' date=' orthodox Anglican. Does anybody have a source for the claim that she was Catholic? Did she convert later in life?[/quote']

 

 

I was dying to know. Hold on to your hats. Wiki says she was a Christian *humanist* !

 

:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_L._Sayers

[Nan in Mass]

I have tried to read books about classical education, and haven't found them very helpful. The ones I looked at seemed to assume that anyone who manages to recreate the education that Thomas Jefferson or Augustine received will have a child who has the same political power as Thomas Jefferson, or be as great a philosopher as Augustine. No matter how you educate my children, they are unlikely to become so brilliant. They also seemed to assume that we would all be better off if classical education were universal because it leads to verbal brilliance and verbal brilliance is more important than other sorts. This is probably true if you are seeking political power, but some of my children aren't. Some of my children would be better served by an education that taught them basic verbal skills but then focused on something else, developing their non-verbal talents. They explained the ideas and goals and reasons but were short on explaining exactly what to do with my children each day. The education they described sounded pretty dry. For some children, it would probably be inspiring, but I have active non-academic-minded boys. In order to homeschool effectively, they need to understand the reasons behind what I am asking them to do and work hard and participate in the educational decisions. The education described in the books I read wouldn't inspire them to do these things voluntarily, and I have no wish to force this sort of education on them. Our family isn't academicly oriented enough to make them want to do all that hard work on their own. Have you read The Chosen? That is an atmospere that inspires the children (the brilliant ones, anyway, who have brilliant parents) to want to study during almost all their waking hours. (It also describes a sort of education that requires that much studying, and describes how it depends on having brilliant teachers.) My goal is to teach my children how to think, and I think there is a way to do that within each discipline. There is a way through math (proofs and problem solving), a way through logic (debate), a way through literature (literary analysis), a way through history, etc.

 

I found TWTM when I was looking for homeschooling info and I picked it because what it said about first grade boys matched my son (learned to read easily but wasn't writing yet), and the book lists for the grammar stage matched my family's must-read children's list. I kept using it because it worked. Somewhere along the line, I read the Sayer's speech, and it seemed to make a certain amount of sense to me. Eventually, I got curious and read other things about classical education. As I said, though, I didn't find the reading helpful. TWTM, with its specific directions on what to do every day and its general directions for learning anything at home on your own is helpful. I also found helpful its assumption that writing was a set of skills that had to be specifically taught. So, I've continued to use TWTM now for 8 years. It worked beautifully to educate my older son in a way that combined the best of unschooling and disciplined, organized education. My older son has just left for college, and I feel that the goal of education, as specified at the beginning of TWTM, was met - my son has a basic knowledge of how the world works, basic academic skills, knows how to think for himself, and knows how to teach himself anything.

 

-Nan

[ElizabethB]

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.

 

Thanks, please let me know, I'm excited to see someone else teaching the syllabary and really interested to know what he uses afterwards and how it's working out for your daughter.

[Lovedtodeath]

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....

:iagree:

[Nan in Mass]

The short answers to your questions are: I chose TWTM for practical immediate reasons that had nothing to do (except sideways) with classical Christian education. I did eventually become curious and investigate classical education in general, but didn't find that it helped me at all. And I don't particularly care about SWB's and JW's credentials or how well researched their methods because the bits of the book about families and life and books initially struck me as correct and the unfamiliar bits about homeschooling were working for us. By the time I moved into very unfamiliar territory (high school and great books), TWTM was working so well that I was willing to keep following SWB's and JW's directions. By then, it was obvious that anyone I tried to follow was going to require major alterations to fit my family's goals and quirks, and TWTM is very easy to adapt. It even has lots of suggestions for adapting it.

 

Have you read TWTM? (Forgive me for asking, but many people here haven't.) I suspect I'm not the only one who followed it because it seemed to make sense, especially for my immediate circumstances, not because it was based on extensive research. At least it was written by people who had actually been homeschoolers and teachers. That may be why you aren't getting the sorts of answers that you expected, why people don't seem to care about the origins of TWTM as much as you might expect.

 

-Nan

[Faithr]

I think I was wrong in saying she converted. She was anglo-Catholic, which is defined by wikipedia here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Catholicism She has been included in Catholic anthologies that I have read. I also read a book called Literary Converts by Joseph Pearce who talks about Sayers alot. But I don't see any mention of a 'conversion.' So maybe I remembered wrong.

 

You can be a Christian humanist! They are really different from secular humanists, though!

 

I agree with both Caitlin and Asenik. In fact I had the same gut response as Asenik and I really love LCC too. But I still want to teach my own children and raise them my own way and I do not want to raise pure classical education to something that is on a par with the Scripture or sacred tradition (I'm Catholic). Classical education served/serves us very well, but I don't think it guarantees sainthood. Seems to me, you could go back through history and cite lots of not so saintly folks who also got that classical education. And to paraphrase St. Paul, if I have all the knowledge in the world, but have not love, I am like a clanging gong.

[Lovedtodeath]

The short answers to your questions are: I chose TWTM for practical immediate reasons that had nothing to do (except sideways) with classical Christian education. I did eventually become curious and investigate classical education in general, but didn't find that it helped me at all. And I don't particularly care about SWB's and JW's credentials or how well researched their methods because the bits of the book about families and life and books initially struck me as correct and the unfamiliar bits about homeschooling were working for us. By the time I moved into very unfamiliar territory (high school and great books), TWTM was working so well that I was willing to keep following SWB's and JW's directions. By then, it was obvious that anyone I tried to follow was going to require major alterations to fit my family's goals and quirks, and TWTM is very easy to adapt. It even has lots of suggestions for adapting it.

 

Have you read TWTM? (Forgive me for asking, but many people here haven't.) I suspect I'm not the only one who followed it because it seemed to make sense, especially for my immediate circumstances, not because it was based on extensive research. At least it was written by people who had actually been homeschoolers and teachers. That may be why you aren't getting the sorts of answers that you expected, why people don't seem to care about the origins of TWTM as much as you might expect.

 

-Nan

I LOVE YOU :grouphug: Well said.

[ElizabethB]

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....

 

Well, I now think that starting with syllables first through the syllabary is the best way to go, but I didn't find the syllabary and Webster's Speller until after my daughter had some basic phonics first, but as soon as I figured out the Speller, we switched to it, starting with syllables. My Webster page linked below explains how to use it, with a link to a QuickTime movie showing how to use it.

 

There are also some threads about it, here's the first one, a bit long, but probably best info for you starting with a young child:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70153

 

and a more recent thread, there are replies from some people who have now used the syllabary and Speller successfully with both older children and young beginners, but it is geared toward older remedial students:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97408

[Alice]

The short answers to your questions are: I chose TWTM for practical immediate reasons that had nothing to do (except sideways) with classical Christian education. I did eventually become curious and investigate classical education in general, but didn't find that it helped me at all. And I don't particularly care about SWB's and JW's credentials or how well researched their methods because the bits of the book about families and life and books initially struck me as correct and the unfamiliar bits about homeschooling were working for us. By the time I moved into very unfamiliar territory (high school and great books), TWTM was working so well that I was willing to keep following SWB's and JW's directions. By then, it was obvious that anyone I tried to follow was going to require major alterations to fit my family's goals and quirks, and TWTM is very easy to adapt. It even has lots of suggestions for adapting it.

 

Have you read TWTM? (Forgive me for asking, but many people here haven't.) I suspect I'm not the only one who followed it because it seemed to make sense, especially for my immediate circumstances, not because it was based on extensive research. At least it was written by people who had actually been homeschoolers and teachers. That may be why you aren't getting the sorts of answers that you expected, why people don't seem to care about the origins of TWTM as much as you might expect.

 

-Nan

 

:iagree: (Well, I don't have kids in high school and I'm not nearly as eloquent, but other than that I could have written this.)

[Rosie_0801]

On which base then do you make choices?

 

I think I can answer that bit! I read the WTM, which is a good place to start. I take the bits that make sense to me and fit with my ideas on what a subject should contain and how it should be taught. When I'm umming and ah-ing over WTM recommendations, I come and look online for reviews. When I don't like the WTM recommendations at all, I have to think even more about my personal educational philosophies for that subject and go looking for something that will fit. Sometimes I know what that is and I can look for it. Other times I don't know what that will be, so I keep looking until it jumps out at me. Sometimes I don't know what my personal philosophy should be. I'm a history major! What do I know about choosing science curriculum?!! How should I know what a geography curriculum should contain?!! Then I come here and ask, and read what others have to say and see what makes sense to me.

 

I figured that's what mostly everyone does.

 

When I said before that I think the teachers of those great minds of the past are doing what we do now, and picking the best of the ideas around, I mean "we" as in the types of people who participate in this thread. Current educational policy makers in institutionalised education were not included in that "we!"

 

Let me think. I was attracted to the WTM because of the heavy focus on literacy and the use of history as a spine. I think literacy is the key to everything, so if you have good skills there, you'll be able to unlock the secrets of mostly any subject area. I liked the use of history as a spine because my education was so sketchy. We doubled up on some things, skipped large chunks of other things and didn't learn anything in order. This means I know bibs and bobs of all sorts of things, and have no idea how they relate because I don't remember when any of it happened. Over time my ideas have evolved away from tying so much to the history cycle, but it was a useful idea to start me off, and a useful place to come back to if I need to. A default setting, if you like. I didn't like the WTM recommendations for science because it seemed so bitsy, and studying one subject each year seemed like a system that was there for the sake of having a system. One thing that bothered me about my school experience was the focus on the content, and no idea at all about the discipline behind it. I only learned that concept at uni. When I tripped over Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding, I was immediately interested because that seems to be what he's trying to do. Now I haven't seen a copy yet, but I think I can supplement with living books and other experiments and provide something more real for my kids than I had at school. Now I've decided they should learn Arabic at Saturday school, but that's another conversation, lol.

 

Hope my ravings were in some way helpful! I was trying to be helpful, not self indulgent, in case that's not obvious ;)

 

Rosie

Edited June 12, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Lovedtodeath]

I like your posts, Rosie. They are helpful to me. :)

[Impish]

I completely agree with Nan.

 

I'm here at the Hive purely at the recommendation of a friend whose here under the nic, SpecialMama. Before joining the Hive, I'd picked up on a whim and distant memory of hearing good things, SOTW Volume 2 because I stumbled upon it at a favourite homeschooling store, and it was even on sale! w00t! And so were the accompanying activity pages! :party:Its not until the last week that I picked up a copy of TWTM, and I have no intention of changing my plans of switching from starting TOG next Sept...which happily includes SOTW ;)

 

I didn't set out planning to homeschool, which probably explains my crazed haphazard approach. It was a move of desperation, not something I'd been planning for years...unlike my approach now for the Littles.

[Nan in Mass]

Did the teachers all use the same method? Did they use the same method with each individual student? (I don't know - I'm asking.) Perhaps each teacher adapted his methods to meet each of his student's needs? And sometimes people arrive at what is right despite poor teachers and methods. Perhaps there are many ways to learn to think, and once a person learns to think, they can think their way to the truth? -Nan

[brehon]

Did the teachers all use the same method? Did they use the same method with each individual student? (I don't know - I'm asking.) Perhaps each teacher adapted his methods to meet each of his student's needs? And sometimes people arrive at what is right despite poor teachers and methods. Perhaps there are many ways to learn to think, and once a person learns to think, they can think their way to the truth? -Nan

 

I would think no, not all of the teachers used the same method - simply considering the differences in time and space. Augustine, for instance, was one of the last people whose works are extant, who received a truly "classical" education (i.e. from Roman teachers). St Thomas Aquinas received a different "classical" education - one which certainly inherited qualities from the Classical world, but was none the less different, more Medieval. The Jesuits several centuries later built on the ideas inherited from the Classical and Medieval world infused with deep Christian (Catholic) thought.

 

It strikes me that maybe what you're asking is whether each teacher in a given era/situation taught the same to every student. I think that there were more than likely similarities between a master at, say, Oxford in the 13th c. and a master (teacher, whatever they were called) in Paris in the 13th c. As far as adaptations for individual needs, hmm, my woefully uneducated guess is that there would be about as much individual adaptation then as there is now (generally speaking and assuming instruction in some sort of school setting). And I think you're right in that there is more than one way to truly educate someone (including, na ja, how to think).

 

OP, I don't know that you'll find the answer you're looking for simply because each generation/era built on the previous centuries' thoughts and ideas. If you're looking for a history of classical education, perhaps reading Tracy Simmons' Climbing Parnassus (did I remember his name right?) will help you understand the evolving nature of "classical" education. Even the Romans themselves built on and adapted the idea of padeia - an ancient Greek term best translated as enculturation (and even that isn't quite right, I don't think). It's how the noble young men of (mainly) Athens were educated.

 

Then, of course, there's the whole "what does Athens have to do with Jerusulem?" debate. That's another can o' worms - one I don't think plays into what you're asking necessarily.

 

I chose the type of education I wanted for my kids after reading TWTM and then LCC, in addition to other readings. I don't think there is only one way to produce good thinkers...good citizens...good people.

[iwka]

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...

 

Dziękuję bardzo / Thank You very much.

Bardzo przepraszam / http://www.howtosayin.com/say/english/bardzo,+bardzo+przepraszam.html

 

Do you really know that I know why we say that? I just speak it!!!!:tongue_smilie:

[iwka]

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??

 

http://www.howtosayin.com/bardzo,+bardzo+przepraszam.html

:lol:

[Georgiana Daniels]

Well, I now think that starting with syllables first through the syllabary is the best way to go, but I didn't find the syllabary and Webster's Speller until after my daughter had some basic phonics first, but as soon as I figured out the Speller, we switched to it, starting with syllables. My Webster page linked below explains how to use it, with a link to a QuickTime movie showing how to use it.

 

There are also some threads about it, here's the first one, a bit long, but probably best info for you starting with a young child:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70153

 

and a more recent thread, there are replies from some people who have now used the syllabary and Speller successfully with both older children and young beginners, but it is geared toward older remedial students:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97408

 

Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction!

[ElizabethB]

Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction!

 

You're welcome.

 

Good luck!

[iwka]

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.

 

I think that it is very much about what and how was it studied. Latin could serve as a link here, as a language through which people throughout centuries were educated for a reason.

 

Thanks for the link and the book recom.

 

Was your muffin good?:)

[iwka]

This is an interesting thread! I wish I knew how to quote!

 

I couldn't to figure that out for nothing! Every post has a little button "quote". Click and watch what happens...magic...

 

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.

 

I think it depends when the good old days were. Ancients? Early Medevial? Medevial? That would differ, I think. The common opinion is that very low percentage of people had access to education, but I just started reading this book about Jesuit Christian Classical schools and it does not confirm that opinion at all. I am quite interested in that topic.

 

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.

 

In England and some other countries in Europe there is some procedure in place where the kids are leaded into choosing more "occupational" or more "scholarly" options at quite early age. Brits like it ( I think). Does it mean that the level of reasoning and thinking, analizing, critical thinking, debating etc is (or should be) diminished for these who are skilled more with "their hands" then "with their minds"? "High level of knowledge" - that depends on what you mean by that. Today's standards of knowledge are totally different then even few decades ago. Are we thinking that narrower specialisations are more desirable, so we cut off on the skills that were given momre prioritiy in the decades and cnturies before? Also, I think that everybody deserves and should be thought to their highest potential (I think someone needs to remind me ths every day before I rise and attempt to teach my own).

 

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.

 

I've read it few years ago, maybe I can find that fragment. :001_smile:

 

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 that without ideology one can't fulfill his destiny, because he will not know where, how and when to go. Without the absolutes we can't have or see or strive for the best. God is ideal, we are sinners. That does not mean we shouldn't think and contemplate about being pure, holy and perfect. God himself encourages us to be perfect because He is. Is that ideal? Is that practical? Reality is spiritual first, then visible. Our every day life (reality in common meaning) should evolve first around the highest things. That will provide the answers to the more visible (no lesser) things around.

Oh, gosh. I hope that I am being clear on that. I don't want to sound way out there. Jesus came "here" from "there", and in Him we see the best concoction of ideal and practical. But...how different priorities, time management, focus, behavior, handling of finances and wealth, debates, rhetoric etc than what we are concentrating our days 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.

 

Popularity does not get to me. Anyone can be popular today. Especialy in the USA. People here are like sponges, anything goes. I am constantly amazed.

 

By saying this I am not trying to diminish SWB accomplishments. I am greatful for her. I am trying to say, if so many people looking for godd classcial education are following her advice, which is based massively on one essey of D. Sayers, and not checking into the true originators of the classical ecuation, then it is done without any re-thinking. Popular (public) mass education could be blamed for that. I am on the same boat as anybody else.

 

Thanks for posting

[iwka]

Apologizing ahead of time for being blunt and expressing what is ultimately just my own opinion, but am I the only one having trouble sorting through exactly what Mr. Michael is trying to say? I can't get past what I feel like is an arrogant, my-way-only attitude. And to be honest, he doesn't appear to have a very high regard for homeschooling, in that it is all on CLAA and his teachers and his methods, period. Parents don't choose, and they don't teach. They merely monitor.

 

I think he proposes that, because he assumes that most of the parents can't teach that way. Besides, if you peak aroung the site you will see that parents are teaching and they are in charge, he is in no way assuming that he takes that role from parents.

 

I understand that he doesn't agree with Sayers (or any of the other homeschooling ideas), but I feel like his answer is that you follow him completely instead of following any of them -- never thinking for yourself.

 

I just found their web site few weeks ago through this board. I like people who know what they are talking about. It might sound blunt and too much to the point, but I am not offended by the truth. It seems to me that he is an expert in his field, i.e. Christian Classical Education. My kids are not enrolled in CLAA (yet:001_smile:), I am not affiliated with CLAA. As I am looking for the answers, I quote people who have better knowledge and understanding than I about things that I am trying to learn about. I don't think I am "following him completely", but I can say that I am agreeing with a lot of his thinking pathways.

 

With WTM, I feel like I am in charge of what I am doing, even if I follow all of her suggestions, which I don't. SWB is a consultant and my primary "spine", but I pick and choose from other homeschooling methods and publishers too. So maybe my issue is with control in general? I just don't trust anybody who claims to have all the answers and tears down anyone else who doesn't agree. Things are rarely that clear.

 

That is why I am so eclectic in choosing the methods and the content of our homeschooling curriculum. Things are rarely clear because our post-Christian Western societies, families, schools are not Christ centered anymore. Cultural, economical, religious pluralism are influencing Christian mindsets and practices and are forming ways that are not taking us back to God, but we feel more and more pressured to fit into this world instead of challenging it. Yes we live here, but we should look above. Then things are clearer. (Except in Protestant world there are not clearer, because there is over 20,000 denominations claiming the truth on this or that - how can that teach any clarity, except conformism...but I will not go there...unless later)

 

BTW, I am Catholic and could enroll under his requirements, but I just don't feel like I want to or need to. I am not saying there is anything wrong with finding someone you agree with and following them, but I personally want to think that through without all the vitriol. How is following him blindly any better than any of the other options out there?

 

I am not blindly following him, as I stated before, but if I follow someone (we always follow someone), that would be someone who's expertise on the subject I can trust.

 

Thanks for your comments

[Robin in Tx]

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.

 

It is my understanding that Aquinas was sent to university as an adolescent where his exposure to Aristotle greatly influenced his philosophy. Augustine was a pagan well into his 30s and studied (and taught) rhetoric all during that time. Jerome... well, there's another one who lived during the 3rd or 4th century and while we do know that he studied under roman grammarians, it certainly wasn't the educational model of the medeival church. These men were clearly not all educated the exact same way.

 

But content is the same. Grammar. Logic(philosophy). Rhetoric. The trivium.

 

Whether you like Sayer's recommendations or not, the truth is that we are still teaching grammar, logic and rhetoric even if we think in terms of grammar stage, logic stage, rhetoric stage. Even the greats did it in that order... they didn't study rhetoric before they studied grammar.

 

the mastering of language and right thinking is the systematic mastering of the trivium. And it is a handy model for mastering other subjects, too. Learning how the subject is symbolized, how it works, and then how it is expressed/communicated. That's how we learn math. That's how we learn music. All we've done is taken what we know about how to master language, recognized that it is relevant to other disciplines and figured outa way to apply that systematic method.

 

I don't believe that there hasn't been any great ideas since ancient times. I believe we benefit from those before us, and stand on their shoulders, even in the field of clasiscal education. I believe there are still things to learn,and improvements to be made. I believe great thinkers live, it's just thatwe will not recognize them as "fathers" of a 2000 year old faith. I see a lot of what goes on in classical ed circles who want to cling to anything ancient and disregard anything modern as myopic, refusing to move forward. It's almost always self serving, btw - someone in the business of convincing the public that their way is the "more" classical way. Sorry, we're all neo classical. No one is recreating ancient rome in their homes. And no one is studying latin because it's a spoken language (do you think the romans would have studied latin if their mother tongue was something different? do you think the medieval church universities would have taught latin if the scriptures had been translated into german instead of latin?) The point is there was a need to know latin. We are the only educators in the history of pursuing the trivium who are teaching latin when we don't really have to. We could study our own grammar and master it, just like the romans did. I'm not so sure I agree about the latin centered approach. Latin is not what makes an education classical. The trivium is. Latin is a tool, it's not one of the arts. And I think you can master grammar, logic and rhetoric without knowing any latin at all. Latin just makes it a richer experience. That was a tangent. Sorry!

[iwka]

Here's my difficulty with the ideas you're presenting here: we CONSTANTLY use the same words in more than one way, we constantly equivocate, either intentionally or not. It's not enough to simply say that we must all use the same definition of a word to prevent confusion--nearly anything we say can be construed in several ways (witness all the misunderstandings that occur in cyberspace that wouldn't occur IRL, because of tone of voice!).

 

I lived in Poland, Russia, Middle East and visited few other countries. I interpreted live at different conferences, meetings etc. It is a constant challenge, even in the age of globalization, to operate within the same meanings of the words. But it must be done, otherwise we can't communicate. That's why definitions should be taken from the their originators. Tone of voice (and body language) is crucial, but also misinterpreted many times. I tend to think that Americans are overly emotionally connected to their every thought. :001_smile:

 

It appears to me from my reading of your posts in this thread that you are approaching this question from a Catholic viewpoint; but do you really anticipate that your Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, secular, et. al. sisters have precisely the same definitions of words, concepts, and goals that you do? Even the word "saint" has different connotations, depending on the branch of Christianity that one follows.

 

We always have to get some point of view to get somewhere, right? Otherwise it's a Babel tower all over again. :tongue_smilie:

 

It seems to me that there's very little possibility of convincing us all that we are not authentically Classical in our approach to educating our children because we don't use the education that was provided to St. Augustine and others--and of convincing us that it is more important to be authentically Classical than it is to do something that works for us as teachers, and our children as students.

 

My point was probably more into provoking people's thoughts that if the WTM stands so much on Sayers' one short essey, and if they really think that they are getting "Classical education", what are they relying it on? That might be a "better education" but is it what they were looking for in a first place?

 

In addition, the privileging of this perfect Classical education negates the achievements of other great thinkers who were not given the education you espouse. Lincoln was certainly not the recipient of the education you desire for your children--does that mean that he was not a great thinker? What about other great saints and Doctors of the Church? As a woman, St. Catherine of Sienna was certainly not given the education afforded to Augustine. Is she somehow less in possession of the Truth of the Divine?

 

That would be my point. Not all are graced with such determination and possibilities. How can we offer it to those?

 

Finally, none of us received a true Classical education in the Augustinian sense; how can we really implement something that we not only didn't receive, but is very distant from our own pool of knowledge and experience? It's all very well to read Augustine's description of his education and to learn from it; however, if we have nothing more to go on than that, we might as well be trying to teach calculus to our children when we ourselves have yet to grasp long division.

 

Why can't we embark on a true research how was it done before?

 

I believe that it's better to do well what we can than to fail miserably by striving toward an unreachable ideal.

 

It is even better to reach for better than we can, if it is accessible to us and just maybe raise few who will raise many.

 

God is ideal. Is he unreachable? Yes and no. (I am no philosopher, so this is lame explanation, but I hope you get what I mean:tongue_smilie:)

 

Forgive me if I have offended. I certainly did not intend offense to anyone here. :grouphug:

 

I totally love your way of thinking.

[Rosie_0801]

Why can't we embark on a true research how was it done before?

 

 

We could, of course. I just don't know that a thorough study of the history of classical education is going to help me determine the best way of teaching my child right now. Well, not right now since they are too little, but you know what I mean! I read what modern thinkers have to say about it, and think about what I have to say about that. I could have a volume of "Aristotle's Ideas on Education" sitting right here, and I'd still sift through the same way I sift through WTM or anything else I read.

 

Rosie

[Nan in Mass]

I am trying to say, if so many people looking for godd classcial education are following her advice, which is based massively on one essey of D. Sayers, and not checking into the true originators of the classical ecuation, then it is done without any re-thinking.

 

I'm sure that SWB and JW didn't just read Sayer's article and design a system of education "based massively" on it, judging by the various people they quote in TWTM. As far as I can tell, they based their book on the education they themselves received. (I'm guessing, but I think probably JW had an education similar to the one my mother received at a Latin school here is the US.) They have obviously rethought their own educations, taking into account what others have written about a classical education. Many people here on this board have researched classical education and rethought TWTM. That is why we are all doing something different. All of us who have read TWTM have adapted it to fit our goals. And many of us have found that when it came time to choose how to teach our particular children right now, TWTM was a wonderful resource. TWTM boards are a wonderful resource, also, one where people are welcome to discuss many forms of neo-classical and refine their goals and methods. The boards exist because people are "rethinking" constantly.

 

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

PS - You might enjoy Tina in Ouray's posts.

[iwka]

We could, of course. I just don't know that a thorough study of the history of classical education is going to help me determine the best way of teaching my child right now. Well, not right now since they are too little, but you know what I mean! I read what modern thinkers have to say about it, and think about what I have to say about that. I could have a volume of "Aristotle's Ideas on Education" sitting right here, and I'd still sift through the same way I sift through WTM or anything else I read.

 

Rosie

 

True, but...sifting through the guys work who is an expert on the field vs. a person that claims that makes a big difference on what you gonna end up with....we read books that we are familiar with or books that by popular vote have been raised up to that position. Original texts (source texts) are better. I just don't know if I can get into it and understand it the way it was meant to:tongue_smilie:.

[Ibbygirl]

http://www.howtosayin.com/bardzo,+bardzo+przepraszam.html

:lol:

 

 

So is bardzo przepraszam correct?? I couldn't tell from the link you gave me. It just came up a bunch of ads for different language softwares. :confused::confused:

 

dziekuje bardzo, Iwka. ;) :D

[iwka]

So is bardzo przepraszam correct?? I couldn't tell from the link you gave me. It just came up a bunch of ads for different language softwares. :confused::confused:

 

dziekuje bardzo, Iwka. ;) :D

 

Yes, "bardzo przepraszam" is correct. It could be: "I am very sorry" or "Excuse me" (although przepraszam is also excuse me, just the word "bardzo" magnifies the intention of the speaker.

[Ibbygirl]

Yes, "bardzo przepraszam" is correct. It could be: "I am very sorry" or "Excuse me" (although przepraszam is also excuse me, just the word "bardzo" magnifies the intention of the speaker.

 

 

Fainie!! Dziekuje! :) Take that Miss Rosie!! Nanny nanny na na! ;) :D hehe

[Rosie_0801]

True, but...sifting through the guys work who is an expert on the field vs. a person that claims that makes a big difference on what you gonna end up with....we read books that we are familiar with or books that by popular vote have been raised up to that position. Original texts (source texts) are better. I just don't know if I can get into it and understand it the way it was meant to:tongue_smilie:.

 

What makes an expert? Who says an original text is better? How do we know that some archaeologist hasn't dug up a copy of "Aristotle's views on Education" which was, in fact, widely considered to be utter rubbish in his time, but was left somewhere safe for us to find it? Or maybe it was widely acclaimed, but he was only summarising and compiling the works of other thinkers through the lens of what had worked for him. That would make his book of exactly the same value of WTM or anything else we've got, just a heck of a lot older. We could even debate that makes it less useful, because our modern books have more thinkers to draw inspiration from. Hundreds of years worth of thinkers, in fact.

Whether we are reading a modern book, or Aristotle, we still have to think about whether it makes sense in our experience. If it does, beaut. If it doesn't, we go and read other people's experiences (here or some other book) and see whether that makes sense. Being dead for a few hundred years (or more) doesn't make a person more of an expert, or more worthy of being considered than a modern person. I, personally, put more value on JW and SWB's thoughts on education than anyone from the Middle Ages, even if they were sainted! Why? They have done the job recently. Most of those great thinkers of the past weren't mothers. I think a mother knows more about kids than classically trained, male poets or philosophers who lived in times when children were considered chattel. Were those guys good family men? Did they apply their ideas to their own children and come out with good results? Did their kids still like them afterwards? :D SWB is only one person, but she appears well educated and still likes her mother. :)

 

I think you're putting greater value on the ideas of dead guys than they really deserve.

 

Nanny nanny na na! ;) :D hehe

*sigh* It's pronounced "Ner ner ni ner ner."

 

 

Rosie

[Ibbygirl]

*sigh* It's pronounced "Ner ner ni ner ner."

 

 

Rosie

 

 

Bah, you're just bitter! hehehehe I always get EVERYTHING wrong so you have to allow me to glory that I was actually right for a change. At least for just a little bit. :tongue_smilie:;) :D I'm sure I'll do something stupid or get something totally back asswards soon enough. :tongue_smilie:

[Caitilin]

I take your point that original texts are better than summaries or synopses thereof; however, to again use Augustine as our convenient "case in point," Augustine's goal in his writing was NOT to teach others ( esp. those far in the future) how to implement the instruction he received. We can read his writings, as well as the texts he was given to read, (as far as possible) BUT at the end of the day, there will be holes, gaps, lacunae, and missing elements where the record is incomplete, or he failed to mention something which may have been crucial.

 

Of course, as humans we fall infinitely far short of the perfection of the Divine, and also of course, that is not reason to fail to attempt and strive for perfection. However, I think it is dangerous to put too much "faith" (another heavily loaded word! ;)) in the responsibility of academic education in good strong religious formation. There are those who do move from questioning everything to an understanding of the True, Beautiful, and Good; but frequently (more frequently?) the habit of questioning leads not to this perception of the ultimate Truth of the Divine, but rather to the constant and insurmountable perception of the imperfections of the world, and thus to cynicism. I myself fight this internal battle daily--it is extremely difficult for me as a thinking person to maintain my religious faith; and yet, I keep at it, so maybe there's hope for me yet. :)

 

This is all a long-winded way of saying that I think we must be careful what we wish for. Our desire for an academically perfect education for our children does have strong potential to backfire on us and them in terms of faith. Do I think that means that we shouldn't attempt to give them the very best education we can? No. In fact, I strongly disagree with that philosophy. But I do think that it's a calculated risk, and one we must take with our eyes open.

 

It seems to me that the greatest thinkers are not necessarily those people on whom we would want our children to model their lives--but it is important to read them anyway. Nevertheless, I still believe that we cannot truly give to our children the "perfect, truly Classical" education, as we have neither the tools ourselves, nor the historical records, nor all the sources necessary to that endeavor. But really, what we must do is examine ourselves and determine what our most important goal in education is.

 

If our goal is to bring up children whose faith is unshakeable, well, I am not sure this form of "education through inquiry" is the best way to that end. If our goal is to bring up children whose thirst for knowledge is unslakeable, inquiring education is probably an excellent way to that end. For some, the first is paramount, and for some the second. And some, like me, hope that for their children the second will lead with surety and certainty to the first.

 

Thank you for answering my previous post. I am really enjoying this conversation--it feels good to flex the intellectual muscles once in a while! :D

[seewah]

[quote name=Jill' date=' OK;1006674

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. ;)

 

YES!!!!!!!!!! Reading this just made my day. For weeks now I've been trying to nail down what methodology describes our school the best and I just can't do it. I tend to take a little bit of whatever seems to make the most sense and work the best for my boys. Thank you for sharing this! :)

[iwka]

What makes an expert? Who says an original text is better? How do we know that some archaeologist hasn't dug up a copy of "Aristotle's views on Education" which was, in fact, widely considered to be utter rubbish in his time, but was left somewhere safe for us to find it? Or maybe it was widely acclaimed, but he was only summarising and compiling the works of other thinkers through the lens of what had worked for him. That would make his book of exactly the same value of WTM or anything else we've got, just a heck of a lot older. We could even debate that makes it less useful, because our modern books have more thinkers to draw inspiration from. Hundreds of years worth of thinkers, in fact.

 

 

I will think about this one. :tongue_smilie:

 

Whether we are reading a modern book, or Aristotle, we still have to think about whether it makes sense in our experience. If it does, beaut. If it doesn't, we go and read other people's experiences (here or some other book) and see whether that makes sense.

 

 

Is that existential convenience or homeschooling stretched to the max mother's cry out?:001_smile:

 

I think that to begin the evaluation of every important thing in our life and

doing it on the base of "what makes sense" is not the right way. For a radical fanatical Muslim in the Middle East putting bomb on himself makes sense and for many abortion makes sense (ok, this is NOT a post about abortion and Islam :D).

That is extreme explanation just to get to the point that there is more to it than we think, i.e. we rally shouldn't make choices, form opinions, form our destinies etc. just on "what makes sense". The question would be: are there ultimate truths? The ones that we can build all of the less important, but so useful things in life. The lack of consequences in people's choices, because they are not based on the true fundaments, are staggering, like all of the Christians should be anti-abortion, but they are clearly not (polls show that).

 

On the other hand, understanding I totally agree that I do it every day in minor (or not that minor) things in every day life. I try to compare, evaluate, choose and see what would "fit", in the case of a homeschooling mayhem, into our family's schedule, style of learning etc. So I hear ya!

 

Being dead for a few hundred years (or more) doesn't make a person more of an expert, or more worthy of being considered than a modern person. I, personally, put more value on JW and SWB's thoughts on education than anyone from the Middle Ages, even if they were sainted! Why? They have done the job recently. Most of those great thinkers of the past weren't mothers. I think a mother knows more about kids than classically trained, male poets or philosophers who lived in times when children were considered chattel. Were those guys good family men? Did they apply their ideas to their own children and come out with good results? Did their kids still like them afterwards? :D SWB is only one person, but she appears well educated and still likes her mother. :)

 

I think you're putting greater value on the ideas of dead guys than they really deserve.

 

The think is that we wouldn't have what we have without those dead guys in many areas of our lives. The whole Western culture was formed on these dead great guys. What would happen if some of them were not born? I don't know. The possibilities are vast, but worth of imagining (as a homeschooling exercise, we may ask our kids: what would the world be like if Socratese, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great....put whoever here...were not born?

 

Dziękuję za uwagę, życzę miłego dnia.

[iwka]

Whether you like Sayer's recommendations or not, the truth is that we are still teaching grammar, logic and rhetoric even if we think in terms of grammar stage, logic stage, rhetoric stage. Even the greats did it in that order... they didn't study rhetoric before they studied grammar.

 

Yes, the question would be in this case: if we are confused even at the beginning of understanding of what really was though and how then, how can we develop "modern" way which will accomplish what we hope for, and we hoped for classical studies. For exemple, I've had a question on another forum, how can you teach using Socratic discussion, if you did not leran it yourself? Just by throwing a logic course and two years of Latin we are not achieving what we could, if we know HOW. A lot of people in "classical circles" think that Great Books and a discussion following afterwords will sufficer and will teach thinking. It will teach a common sens, and some analitycal thinking, basic fallacies etc. but I doubt it will really teach so rhetoric can be assimilated well. I am not trying to make my kids little Augustines, Homers or Pascals :tongue_smilie:, but I am thinking that if soemone knows how to get to the point of teaching thinking well, I would like to see it and implement. I don't really know how to do that myself, that is why I turn to books like WTM and similar for the answers. When I come to the point that I doubt or don;t understand something, I ask.

 

I don't believe that there hasn't been any great ideas since ancient times. I believe we benefit from those before us, and stand on their shoulders, even in the field of clasiscal education. I believe there are still things to learn,and improvements to be made. I believe great thinkers live, it's just thatwe will not recognize them as "fathers" of a 2000 year old faith. I see a lot of what goes on in classical ed circles who want to cling to anything ancient and disregard anything modern as myopic, refusing to move forward. It's almost always self serving, btw - someone in the business of convincing the public that their way is the "more" classical way.

 

I am also not interested in research for the sake of the research. But if everything was built on the ancient ideas, as you stated, we should be aquainted with it in the way that would be beneficial for our times, and they are because they are mosty timeless. What does it mean then "to move forward?" If we are building on something that is a fundament, we can't throw it away, but build on it in a wise way.The "wise" is the problem. The "new" is not the enemy of the "old", if it fits together. If it does not, let's not call it the old name, because we are changing the recipe. But then, as Ecclesiastes says: There is nothing new under the sun. :D

Just new packages of the old ideas?

 

Sorry, we're all neo classical. No one is recreating ancient rome in their homes. And no one is studying latin because it's a spoken language (do you think the romans would have studied latin if their mother tongue was something different? do you think the medieval church universities would have taught latin if the scriptures had been translated into german instead of latin?) The point is there was a need to know latin. We are the only educators in the history of pursuing the trivium who are teaching latin when we don't really have to. We could study our own grammar and master it, just like the romans did. I'm not so sure I agree about the latin centered approach. Latin is not what makes an education classical. The trivium is. Latin is a tool, it's not one of the arts. And I think you can master grammar, logic and rhetoric without knowing any latin at all. Latin just makes it a richer experience. That was a tangent. Sorry!

 

Hey, when we moved to our house we've had two Roman columns in our living room. We threw them away!!!

[iwka]

I would think no, not all of the teachers used the same method - simply considering the differences in time and space. Augustine, for instance, was one of the last people whose works are extant, who received a truly "classical" education (i.e. from Roman teachers). St Thomas Aquinas received a different "classical" education - one which certainly inherited qualities from the Classical world, but was none the less different, more Medieval. The Jesuits several centuries later built on the ideas inherited from the Classical and Medieval world infused with deep Christian (Catholic) thought.

 

It strikes me that maybe what you're asking is whether each teacher in a given era/situation taught the same to every student. I think that there were more than likely similarities between a master at, say, Oxford in the 13th c. and a master (teacher, whatever they were called) in Paris in the 13th c. As far as adaptations for individual needs, hmm, my woefully uneducated guess is that there would be about as much individual adaptation then as there is now (generally speaking and assuming instruction in some sort of school setting). And I think you're right in that there is more than one way to truly educate someone (including, na ja, how to think).

 

OP, I don't know that you'll find the answer you're looking for simply because each generation/era built on the previous centuries' thoughts and ideas. If you're looking for a history of classical education, perhaps reading Tracy Simmons' Climbing Parnassus (did I remember his name right?) will help you understand the evolving nature of "classical" education. Even the Romans themselves built on and adapted the idea of padeia - an ancient Greek term best translated as enculturation (and even that isn't quite right, I don't think). It's how the noble young men of (mainly) Athens were educated.

 

Then, of course, there's the whole "what does Athens have to do with Jerusulem?" debate. That's another can o' worms - one I don't think plays into what you're asking necessarily.

 

I chose the type of education I wanted for my kids after reading TWTM and then LCC, in addition to other readings. I don't think there is only one way to produce good thinkers...good citizens...good people.

 

This was helpful. Parnassus is on my reading list. Thanks

[Rosie_0801]

Is that existential convenience or homeschooling stretched to the max mother's cry out?:001_smile:

 

 

I don't know what that means. :blushing:

 

I think that to begin the evaluation of every important thing in our life and

doing it on the base of "what makes sense" is not the right way.

Ah, that's where I can not help you. Even my religion was built out of what made sense, or didn't but made me feel better. "What makes sense" is the right way for me to trudge through the ideas that life presents. What makes sense does change in light of new information, however. What makes sense isn't always what I like best, either.

 

The think is that we wouldn't have what we have without those dead guys in many areas of our lives. The whole Western culture was formed on these dead great guys. What would happen if some of them were not born? I don't know. The possibilities are vast, but worth of imagining (as a homeschooling exercise, we may ask our kids: what would the world be like if Socratese, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great....put whoever here...were not born?

 

 

Oh, I'm not knocking the usefulness of great dead guys. But where would we be if their mother's hadn't been born? If our mothers hadn't been born? My father in law has accomplished impressive things in his life, but I was not impressed when he started lecturing me on child-raising theory. He may have two grown children, but I have spent more time raising small children than he has. Some of what he was saying made sense, but some of it, well :toetap05:

Socrates and all those other impressive dead guys were coming from traditions just like we come from traditions.

 

Dziękuję za uwagę, życzę miłego dnia.

Don't know what that means either! Thanks and something is nice?

 

Rosie

[Ibbygirl]

Dziękuję za uwagę, życzę miłego dnia.

 

 

Don't know what that means either! Thanks and something is nice?

 

Rosie

 

 

Is it "thank you for your attention, have a nice day"??

[Nan in Mass]

Are you trying to work out your own philosophy of life, what is right and true and good? Or are you trying to figure out how to teach that philosophy to your children? They are two different things, although of course they are related. I don't pretend to have all the answers and I find the answers expand as I become older, but I have already figured out what absolute values I want to teach my children. What I need to know is how to teach those to my children, and for that, SWB and JW are primary sources, not secondary sources, because they have taught and been taught at home in my times. If I felt that I was incapable of doing the teaching, I would put my children in a private school like my cousin's. He goes to a school that is very like the one described in your original post except run by Roman Catholic monks.

 

About Socratic discussions: TWTM recommends resources for leading Socratic discussions for those parents who don't know how to do this. It also recommends resources for parents who are unfamiliar with the scientific method. The reason the book is so long is that it doesn't just say to read great books and learn Latin and take a logic class. Have you read TWTM?

 

I guess I believe that if one of our key venerable thinkers hadn't been born, another would have arisen. I think enough people exist and have existed that the system of philosophical progress is fairly robust. We may slip back in one area while we are making progress in another, or slip back while we deal with some natural disasters or the results of a wrong path, but I think that progress over a great period of time does indeed go forward.

 

-Nan

 

PS - Now that I've gotten my middle one off to college, I am spending a few days finalizing my plans for my youngest's high school. I would like to thank you for this discussion. As always, I am finding that discussions like this help me to solidify my plans. From experience GRIN, I know that they will change, but I can relax better during the summer if I have things worked out, at least for the moment. Happy summer (if it is summer where you live and your summer resembles a traditional New England summer...)!

[angela in ohio]

Quote: 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.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who is starting a school or homeschooling their own children in a classical style who has read only Sayer's essay and done no other research or reading on classical education methods.

 

The article's author and I have religious differences, but we do share a caution in approaching the ages=stages approach. Classical education is about acquiring the tools of learning, and you must progress through the three parts of the trivium in each subject at whatever age you begin a study of it. However, children do tend to enjoy and have the ability for certain skills at certain ages and capitalizing on that leads to successful, satisfied children.

[Nan in Mass]

This is one of the two main reasons I haven't totally bought into classical education. My middle son, who astounds us all with the rightness of his thinking, learned that right thinking three ways, only two of which have to do with classical education. At home, he learned to think, to sift right from wrong. At home, he read what other great thinkers in the past have said. But I don't think that would have been enough by itself to make him the way he is. He also had to go see the world, practise that sifting process, gain experience and see things with his own eyes, see how other people are applying their philosophy to their lives, and meet and talk with some of the people who are devoting their lives to changing themselves and the world. I think that classical education is only part of what makes a good person.

 

I also think you are so right about teaching hope as well. When I wrote out our homeschooling philosophy, I included that. If we despair about the state of the world and humanity, what incentive do we have to try to be good, to try to change the world for the better? I see this as a major problem with teens today.

 

-Nan

[JenniferB]

 

:iagree: So true!

[elizabeth]

I have been following this thread with great interest having degrees in philosophy, theology and law. It is with great regret to note that what is being discussed seems to focus on narrowing the curricula, the ideas and methodologies utilized to a particular niche so as to define very narrowly what is worthy of study or not. Essentially what is being suggested effectively ignores the entire Enlightenment and its subsequent period, the Renaissance. Having had the privilege of Jesuit education I can say with certainty that the limiting of one's moral philosophy exposure to Aristotle, for example , is narrow and antithetical to becoming a well educated person. That means exposure to the range of ideas not merely those that you happen to agree with. It is absolutely mind numbingly obvious to me that narrowing the exposure to the marketplace of ideas is not education but indoctrination. That seems to be a critical difference in terms of defining the scope of classical education is it only the texts used or is it something more? Subject matter and methodology ideally should provide a worthy tension that acknowledges the gap between mentor/leader and student. Is TWTM "classical," in subject matter and/ or methodology? Depends on where you choose to place your emphasis. I do not find it credible to suggest , as some critics of Sayers have,that a well educated person read three philosophers or three playwrights as if these were the pinnacle or only worthy philosophers the world has to offer. It would seem that these are cherry picked to avoid messy things like dissent, reflection,the whole range of reactions to ideas that engaging with great minds invariably should engender. I would charge that the emperor has no clothes. Flame away as you will.