Why do you NOT describe yourself as a classical hser?

[zaichiki]

I'm trying to decide if we "fit" the classical homeschooling definition.

 

 

• We've used Story of the World along with Sonlight. I really like studying history chronologically.
  
• We tweak SL's LA, doing pretty much only the copywork and dictation.
  
• We have always used Singapore Math.
  
• I tried Latin with my oldest. I plan to try Latin with dd next year.
  

I want to teach Latin! Dd has dyslexia and is still really working on spelling English correctly. I'm too nervous to introduce another language's letter sounds right now.

 

When I tried Latin with ds, he was 7. We used Prima Latina, and although the material was not very challenging for him and he had no trouble learning and retaining the new vocabulary, he just couldn't sit still and focus. We had TOO much sitting still at the table for him. So... I ended up dropping Latin AND Spelling curricula just to shave time and sitting off of our day. (He has a great visual memory and was always an excellent speller. I still feel confident that not doing much formal spelling with him was a fine choice.) We continued with copywork, dictation, and math.

 

 

Everything else we do is pretty much read alouds (SL's literature and history-linked literature). Dc do a TON of reading on their own, too. I have added in lapbooking on our history/science topics for dd: she really enjoys making them.

 

So... are we classical homeschoolers? I'm guessing not.

Edited October 9, 2009 by zaichiki

[Aurelia]

Probably not. Classical, to me, is about learning the classical languages and focusing on "classic" literature (like The Aeneid and The Odyssey) and math. SL has too many "other" books included to be classical IMO.

 

That said, our family is not exactly classical, either. We haven't studied Latin yet (probably either next year or the one after, once I'm comfortable with Ariel's reading ability and comfort with Spanish), and have chosen a modern language to learn instead. We also put more emphasis on the fine arts and less on history and grammar than is outlined in the "classical schooling" books I have read. We also do a lot of read alouds that are not related to the time period we are studying.

[Avila]

I am not 100% attached to the four-year history cycle, or at least with starting it in 1st grade. I jump around in the grammar stage and start it full force in 5th grade.

 

I am quite sadly no longer attached to Latin, or at least doing it when we are supposed to do it. I keep starting it and dropping it because DD hates it and I cannot keep up with it. I don't have a final decision made on this. I understand the concept of doing it, but the follow through is just not happening here.

 

I am also not a big fan of the huge amounts of memorization involved in some of the classical programs. I am trying to do much of what WTM recommends, but this varies wildly, depending on which of my DDs we are talking about. My middle DD is not capable of following WTM as written. She is a bright girl, but she has delays in language that necessitate veering from a strict WTM path.

 

And we don't do the science recommendations at all. We end up with a mix of textbooks, living books, and interest-driven learning.

 

OTOH, we do follow much of the language arts recommendations, the math, the how-to of doing history, the great books and classical reading lists, and much of the philosophy behind classical.

 

I call myself classical eclectic. I like classical, but I am not tied to it. I get more classical as we move into the logic stage, but I am never going to qualify as 100%. I like WTM, and it is my first stop when choosing curriculum. It just isn't the only stop.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Asenik

[Storm Bay]

We're eclectic homeschoolers with a Classical slant. I only do 2 of the 4 year cycles of history. My dd's were not rote learners at the rote stage, so we had to totally modify things for them. We haven't always spent enough time on Latin. I just don't take narrations, even though I think it's a great idea in theory.

 

That said, I am very draconian by the time my dc hit high school, but not always the WTM way because, as SWB points out, you do specialize in hs. Not all my dc are going to read all the great books they should. One might read hardly any of them, because we're spending so much time on math, logic & science. Also, I'm rather constrained by apparent requirements in social studies that may make it difficult for my science and math oriented eldest to get in all the world history I'd like to. She has to do 2 full courses of US related social studies. How can I do all the world history properly without adding history electives? I can't, and dd is going to take some math & arts electives instead. Now, my middle dd loves history, so I plan to have her do 4 classes of world history, one section per year as well as the 2 classes of US social studies she needs and a Canadian history class to boot. She's more likely to read more great books, but my ds is the one who is most likely to do lots of literary analysis, even though he's another science buff.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Karin

[Catwoman]

We're eclectic homeschoolers with a Classical slant.

 

Very cool description -- I really like it!!! :cheers2:

 

Cat

[Lori D.]

"Classical" education is a very general term -- so (IMO) it is not about specific curriculum, or doing only certain subjects or NOT doing certain subjects makes you classical or not. From the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_education_movement), it looks like these are the very general guidelines which define modern classical education:

 

1. a systematic framework for teaching all human knowledge

2. based on the traditions of western culture

3. three phases, roughly corresponding with human development

(Grammar = facts; Logic = thinking/analyzing; Rhetoric = debate/composition)

4. often -- but not always -- taught in part by the Socratic method (teacher raises questions, class discusses to answer)

 

 

Are we classical? Yes, I think we fall into that very broad category:

 

1. We may not always do history or science chronologically -- but we cover it thoroughly and systematically, adding in many side subjects such as geography, culture, arts, worldview, comparative religions, etc. to really flesh out and see the connections between various fields of knowledge. Systematic does not have to mean chronological -- that is just one modern common way of making a systematic framework for covering as much human knowledge as possible.

 

2. In medieval times western focus typically meant covering Latin, Logic, Church History, and Traditional Literary Classic Works. We never did Latin (just never could get it to happen here). But we've included critical thinking (grammar/logic stages), and formal logic (rhetoric stage) throughout. We have included as much traditional Western literature as we can (including the ancient and medieval traditional classic works) -- as well as some Western humanities, including art, Christianity/church history, etc. Traditions of Western culture is much vaster now for classical education in modern times, so that also means there is just TOO MUCH information to learn EVERYTHING now; and for us, it also means including many more recent classic books of modern Western culture throughout homeschooling an list -- many of these are on the SL lists, are Newberry books, or are great "finds" of our own.

 

We have also substituted one year of world culture / geography / comparative religions for a year of history, in order to better understand non-Western peoples. While not a focus on Western traditions (#2 above), it has greatly added to our efforts toward "all human knowledge" (#1 above). :)

 

3. We have seen that our children's development does roughly fall into three stages, and as they have matured, we have tried to select curriculum that best helps them further develop the stage they are in, as well as move toward the next stage. In early years that meant Miquon and Singapore math for one student, Math-U-See for another. I don't see how one math is more "classical" than another -- the point in the grammar/logic stages for math is facts, and building math foundations. Whatever math program helps you accomplish that "classical education" goal therefore is working in a "classical" fashion.

 

4. We have always, and even now into high school continue to, read aloud/discuss together almost every subject; follow "bunny trails"; ask questions and pursue answers; etc. To us, that is the very heart of homeschooling together, the one-on-one mentoring that homeschooling provides, matches up with that ancient classical education technique of the Socratic Method.

 

 

Enjoy YOUR family's version of classical education and your homeschooling journey together! Warmest regards, Lori D.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Lori D.
fixed typo; added info

[lovemykids]

"Classical" education is a very general term -- so (IMO) it is not about specific curriculum, or doing only certain subjects or NOT doing certain subjects makes you classical or not. From the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_education_movement), it looks like these are the very general guidelines which define modern classical education:

 

1. a systematic framework for teaching all human knowledge

2. based on the traditions of western culture

3. three phases, roughly corresponding with human development

(Grammar = facts; Logic = thinking/analyzing; Rhetoric = debate/composition)

4. often -- but not always -- taught in part by the Socratic method (teacher raises questions, class discusses to answer)

 

 

Are we classical? Yes, I think we fall into that very broad category:

 

1. We may not always do history or science chronologically -- but we cover it thoroughly and systematically, adding in many side subjects such as geography, culture, arts, worldview, comparative religions, etc. to really flesh out and see the connections between various fields of knowledge. Systematic does not have to mean chronological -- that is just one modern common way of making a systematic framework for covering as much human knowledge as possible.

 

2. In medieval times western focus typically meant covering Latin, Logic, Church History, and Traditional Literary Classic Works. We never did Latin (just never could get it to happen here). But we've included critical thinking (grammar/logic stages), and formal logic (rhetoric stage) throughout. We have included as much traditional Western literature as we can (including the ancient and medieval traditional classic works) -- as well as some Western humanities, including art, Christianity/church history, etc. Traditions of Western culture is much vaster now for classical education in modern times, so that also means there is just TOO MUCH information to learn EVERYTHING now; and for us, it also means including many more recent classic books of modern Western culture throughout homeschooling an list -- many of these are on the SL lists, are Newberry books, or are great "finds" of our own.

 

We have also substituted one year of world culture / geography / comparative religions for a year of history, in order to better understand non-Western peoples. While not a focus on Western traditions (#2 above), it has greatly added to our efforts toward "all human knowledge" (#1 above). :)

 

3. We have seen that our children's development does roughly fall into three stages, and as they have matured, we have tried to select curriculum that best helps them further develop the stage they are in, as well as move toward the next stage. In early years that meant Miquon and Singapore math for one student, Math-U-See for another. I don't see how one math is more "classical" than another -- the point in the grammar/logic stages for math is facts, and building math foundations. Whatever math program helps you accomplish that "classical education" goal therefore is working in a "classical" fashion.

 

4. We have always, and even now into high school continue to, read aloud/discuss together almost every subject; follow "bunny trails"; ask questions and pursue answers; etc. To us, that is the very heart of homeschooling together, the one-on-one mentoring that homeschooling provides, matches up with that ancient classical education technique of the Socratic Method.

 

 

Enjoy YOUR family's version of classical education and your homeschooling journey together! Warmest regards, Lori D.

 

:iagree:

[PeterPan]

I don't call myself a classical homeschooler, because it's not something I worry about being. At this point all I try to do is challenge dd, get the work done, and accomplish our own goals as a family. They happen to overlap quite a bit with what WTM says to do, and I find WTM inspiring. But I have no need to call myself classical. I didn't study latin in school, and my life didn't end. I didn't learn much history, and I could care less. I'm more concerned about the end product (a pleasant, mature human being) than I am the methods, and I think there are a lot of methods to get there. I neither bow down to the Greeks and Romans nor to the Neo's. Thirty years from now it won't matter what my methodology was called, only how she turned out.

 

And yes, I do teach history. I just don't worry about it for myself, because I've already come to the Forgetting Years. ;)

[MamaSheep]

I am very attracted by WTM and other "classical" approaches to homeschooling. At our house, though, we have some "special needs" that are incompatible with a lot of the recommendations and at this point my goal is to give my children AN education, one that they can process with their individual challenges and which covers the basic information they will need in order to function in society. The "style" of their education is very dependent on their individual strengths and challenges--which do NOT fit the typical developmental path that is assumed to be taking place in classical education programs. For example, I think that ds was born in the logic stage. If not, he certainly reached it prior to age three. However, I am not sure he will ever really progress into the rhetoric stage. So basically I have to pick what works for HIM, and a lot of the time the recommendations for kids in his age bracket have just not been appropriate for his style of thinking. We have also dealt, up until just recently, with major behavioral challenges with him, and that has meant we needed to focus on the really core stuff with him and not worry about the really great, really useful, but somewhat extraneous stuff. I can only fight so many battles in one day, and as much as I see the value in learning Latin, especially for such a science minded child, that was just one hill I decided not to even fight on, let alone die.

 

So I would LIKE to be a classical homeschooler, and I rather intend to go down that road with dd fairly strongly once she's got her reading more in hand, but with ds it just has never been a truly viable option because of his developmental and behavioral issues. He's so much better now that we may be able to push in that direction a bit more through the high school years, but I think it will always be a modified version. I consider myself an eclectic homeschooler because I don't think we currently incorporate enough of the aspects of the classical approach to qualify as classical, even though that is the approach which holds the most appeal for me.

[MIch elle]

:D

[Karen in CO]

:D

:iagree:

I simply don't because then I would have to explain something about what I do, and then there is the whole issue of what does it mean to be a "classical" anything. It is just much easier to say that we homeschool and move on. I'll answer a specific question and even recommend something if somebody asks, but short answers are better.

 

It reminds me of the debate surrounding whether or not computer science should science is a legitimate science - after all a chemist is a chemist, not a chemical scientist. Do you study biology or biological science? Is computer science a real science? Guess what I majored in?

 

Homeschoolers are already outside of the normal box, it is hard to get us to agree to get back into another one.

[lovemykids]

Why does it matter?:D

 

Yup, it doesn't really matter:chillpill:...just sayin'... I guess we like to chat about it...:tongue_smilie:

:auto:

[swellmomma]

Because I do not follow the 4 yr history cycle, the science(I get specific resource ideas from WTM but do not follow the specific cycle). I am also more relaxed then the TWTM is written like, but cover more subjects(along the lines of CM) than a straight classical phil.

[Lori D.]

Yup, it doesn't really matter:chillpill:...just sayin'... I guess we like to chat about it...:tongue_smilie:

:auto:

 

 

 

Agree. I just wanted to add that I think it is important to define terms when asking about such a broad topic, which is why I had such a lengthy answer. The daily reality of homeschooling in our home is much like what some of the other ladies have said -- we do what works for us, and don't worry about labeling. We use resources, such as TWTM among many others, for suggested ideas -- but are not at all limited to or tied to them. We are in year 10, with 2 more years to go, and it's been an awesome privilege and wonderful journey, and has been an amazing experience of learning, grow, education, and character development for our two young men (and us too!). Hope that is ultimately the experience all of you are having as well, regardless of what you call your educational philosophy. :001_smile: Warmest regards, Lori D.

[KAR120C]

We actually do follow the classical model pretty closely... insofar as Latin and grammar and logic and writing and great books, and systematic history and science (although as someone else pointed out, not necessarily the same way anyone else takes that...), but we also have some significant deviations, especially in the timing. Our stages never matched up right... or kept to themselves...

 

But for all that... I don't generally describe us as "classical homeschoolers". Mostly because the reason we do what we do isn't because I'm trying to follow the classical model... I only set out to fit the education to the child, and this is where we ended up. If it stopped working, we'd change.

 

I know it's not true of everyone, but I've known too many people to become attached to a label and stop thinking about how each part fits them and whether it's really what they need (or just a romantic image of what they think they need)... I guess I'm allergic to identifying with a group. Draconian though... I'll take that label. ;)

 

[And I should add: I know I should be more open-minded -- there are tons of people who find themselves with a model that really does fit them like a glove. I'm really thinking of a few specific IRL people that have ruined my view on it... none of whom ever made it far past the "honeymoon" of discovering whatever model it was that was supposed to be perfect.... surprise surprise...]

[fivetails]

I don't call us 'classical' because....we aren't! Funny how that works. :tongue_smilie:

 

Heck, I haven't even read TWTM ~ which I realize is tantamount to blasphemy 'round these parts, but you can't stone me cuz I am guarded by ATTACK CATS. :w00t:

[Karen in CO]

none of whom ever made it far past the "honeymoon" of discovering whatever model it was that was supposed to be perfect.... surprise surprise...]

 

I love this. Draconian probably fits me best for later years. Maybe Loosey-Goosey for the early years while the kids are young and exploring, then I gradually expand the work load starting in third until they flee to college for a break. We are heavy on science and math and art and foreign languages and sunshine and fresh air and long walks and great literature. I know many IRL homeschoolers that quit after the honeymoon of homeschooling or are adamant about Philosophy X until after they have tried to stick with it a few years. Slow and Steady - that's me. I'm not winning any points for style, but I'm here for the long term.

 

Wanna know what we use?

Minimus and Lively Latin plus Rosetta Stone French plus Spanish at school once a week and Hiragana lessons from my oldest

Singapore, BJU, MEP and Ray's math

SoTW plus separate American History unit studies

WWE3

the library and experiment books for science

free choice reading - Right now dd is reading Through the Looking Glass because she just finished Alice in Wonderland and loved it. She chose to read Alice because she had memorized Jabberwocky last year and fell in love with Carroll's nonsense.

We're also reading yet another version of the Aeneid because we love it.

 

 

On paper we're classical and right now, but that is just a coincidence so I won't call myself classical.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Karen in CO

[lovemykids]

Agree. I just wanted to add that I think it is important to define terms when asking about such a broad topic, which is why I had such a lengthy answer. The daily reality of homeschooling in our home is much like what some of the other ladies have said -- we do what works for us, and don't worry about labeling. We use resources, such as TWTM among many others, for suggested ideas -- but are not at all limited to or tied to them. We are in year 10, with 2 more years to go, and it's been an awesome privilege and wonderful journey, and has been an amazing experience of learning, grow, education, and character development for our two young men (and us too!). Hope that is ultimately the experience all of you are having as well, regardless of what you call your educational philosophy. :001_smile: Warmest regards, Lori D.

 

I believe it to be a broad term as well, being an eclectic classical HSer simply gives me base to start from. I throw in whatever is applicable along the way, and I do still consider myself a classical HSer.

 

(CM was a classical educator, so if you are loosely following TWM and CM, you are still allowed to call yourself classical. ;))

 

be sure to reread the definition!

It is a wonderful journey!

[melmichigan]

I asked this about SL the other night and got a response that there is a comment about SL in one of the older versions of WTM that mentions SL as classical. I'd love to know which one and more about it but haven't heard any more on that thread. It isn't mentioned in the newer editions other than to list the company. Anyone have an older edition of WTM and care to share? It is mentioned on this website under the 2003 edition but only to list the curriculum.

Edited October 10, 2009 by melmichigan

[Karen in CO]

I asked this about SL the other night and got a response that there is a comment about SL in one of the older versions of WTM that mentions SL as classical. I'd love to know which one and more about it but haven't heard any more on that thread. It isn't mentioned in the newer editions other than to list the company. Anyone have an older edition of WTM and care to share? It is mentioned on this website under the 2003 edition but only to list the curriculum.

 

 

The only reference I've ever seen is in an old article comparing unit studies to the WTM. It was listed as a unit study type program. Here is that article.

 

btw if anybody is on WTM site reading articles - this is my favorite early elem. article. Academic Excellence in Grades K-4. It is so useful. It is a nice summary from the grammar stage section of the WTM.

[Trixie]

Why does it matter?

 

 

 

In general, I agree; I don't really like labels. But I do see the usefulness of them. :001_smile:

 

My goal is to educate my child, and my definition of education aligns pretty closely with Simmons's definition of a "classical" or "traditional" education in "Climbing Parnassus;" but I've found that a more relaxed (or "unschoolish") approach to as many subjects as possible works best for my family. I don't believe that makes my educational philosophy or approach any less "classical" or "traditional" than that of someone who opts to follow a framework determined by someone else. TWTM and LCC don't claim ownership of what constitutes a "classical" or "neo-classical" education; each simply outlines a course of study for achieving such an education, as the authors of those programs perceive of and define the term. Different people find that framework more or less useful, depending on their individual circumstances.

 

Frankly, I'm always sort of amused by homeschoolers who feel the need to mark their territory, who use labels as walls rather than windows, making themselves the arbiters of what other homeschoolers should or should not label themselves or their educational methods. I recently read a criticism of the notion of "classical unschoolers" that I found particularly amusing and more than a little off the mark. Like most other "classical unschoolers," I use the term neither to feel better about myself and what I do nor to win others' approval, and certainly not to lock myself in or others out. I do it to provide others with an understanding of what "education" looks like to me; and I simply find education too deep and expansive and tentacled to fit into a single, labeled box.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[melmichigan]

btw if anybody is on WTM site reading articles - this is my favorite early elem. article. Academic Excellence in Grades K-4. It is so useful. It is a nice summary from the grammar stage section of the WTM.

 

SL is mentioned in this article under Academic Goals. :) I read the article two nights ago and that is where some of the question came from.

 

 

I will add that I don't classify myself as anything other than a homeschooler. :D I'm just curious about the materials I have chosen, since this is being discussed so much lately. Wish I could ask Susan Bauer herself....

Edited October 10, 2009 by melmichigan

[kalanamak]

I don't call myself a classical homeschooler, because it's not something I worry about being. At this point all I try to do is challenge dd, get the work done, and accomplish our own goals as a family. They happen to overlap quite a bit with what WTM says to do, and I find WTM inspiring.

 

:iagree: But honestly, in relation to what I see other homeschoolers doing, they would call me Classical (and if they were more precise, neo-Classical). I meet other homeschooler via work and most of them are public school on line or a boxed curriculum.

[Lovedtodeath]

TWTM recommends starting Latin in 3rd or 5th grade, and even has a sequence starting later. Ya'll are too picky. ;)

[Catherine]

Nobody I know IRL would have any idea what that meant?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Nobody I know IRL would have any idea what that meant?

LOL! No matter how I "don't" meet the definition of classical according to die-hard classical educators, people IRL get told "classical" b/c that is the only term I think they will understand. Charlotte Mason they have never heard of (even other homeschoolers).

[Storm Bay]

Why does it matter? :D

 

It doesn't, really, but I find there are times when it's helpful to have a way to briefly describe how we homeschool. It's how I view many labels; helpful in certain situations, but sometimes limiting, so I'm careful when, where and how I use them.

[Carol in Cal.]

Mostly because people would jump down my throat.

 

Most people.

 

People who follow TWTM more closely would say that I'm really not a classical homeschooler. Angrily. (And BTW, I don't think that SWB follows TWTM as closely as those people do. It's a starting point, and she would be the first one to say that you should teach your kids the best way you can figure out for them.)

 

People who are unschoolers would gently say that THEIR children follow THEIR paths because THEY have too much respect for THEIR children to impose paths upon them. With condescension toward me, and pity for my DD.

 

People who send their children to public schools would say that public schools are democratic, that Christian children need to be in them to witness, and that we must be kidding ourselves if we think that our children will be educated properly and socialized effectively. Angrily. And they would be intimidated by the term 'classical' or think it was snobby.

 

People who homeschool in other ways would be intimidated and think that this was snobby or that DD started Latin at 3 and currently cries every day when I try to make her translate Homer for 3 hours. They would not say so, but that is what they would think. Or that I must be extremely competitive and really pushing my DD hard.

 

Really, it's not worth it.

 

If I just say I homeschool, I can pass the bean dip almost immediately if appropriate. If I say I homeschool classically, I borrow a lot of unnecessary hastle.

 

Later on in the conversation, I might mention the name of our homeschool, and that would evoke some further discussion. (It includes the word 'confessional', so it's a bit esoteric.) Also later on in the conversation, if pressed, I would say that I'm an eclectic homeschooler informed by classical homeschooling resources.

 

Mostly I just don't know very many people IRL who I want to talk about this with, so mostly I don't do it.

[sunflowerlady]

Because we do ACE paces.:lol:

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[stripe]

I am baffled by all the recent threads about whether or not someone is really a Classical homeschooler :confused:. As another poster already said, why are we so anxious to attach a label? WHO CARES?? And why are folks getting so upset about it?

 

I guess people got tired of the "Is someone a Christian if they are trying out the theory of evolution on their kids through mass polygamous breeding" threads.

[Peela]

I don't call us classical anymore even though we have some aspects- probably mainly because no one asks, and I just do what I do, not concerned with labels. We still do Latin but terribly slowly, we do history in depth and chronologically. We study classical literature- but not in anywhere near a systematic or rigorous enough to deserve the label classical, at this point. We certainly have a classical flavour.

My older is specialising in her interests now...and they are along artistic lines. She is studying multimedia, art, photography..I keep her doing business and basic math, history and literature. She is finishing up science now and probably won't do any more- she is 15. I want her to focus on her writing too.

Ds13 is still doing a broad study.

I dont try and do "classical"- I try and do what feels best for us each year. It is very influenced by years of reading about classical learning, as well as other influences.

[PollyOR]

No. I was a wannabe for a long time, but life happened and I found that my kids are individuals with different needs.

 

A few years ago my 14yo and I read The Odyssey and The Illiad together. It was a wonderful accomplishment and we were proud of ourselves. She has been dealing with depression for the last couple of years, so I'm happy if we get the basics done.

 

I'm not sure my 11yodd will ever be ready for Homer and the other classics. She was a late reader (8) and still struggles a bit. Rod & Staff seems to be a perfect fit for her (math, history, and science).

 

We are still trying Latin, because I've always wanted to learn Laitn. I don't think the kids care one way or another.

 

Survival seems to be the name of the game here. ;)

[Daisy]

Mostly because people would jump down my throat.

 

Most people.

 

People who follow TWTM more closely would say that I'm really not a classical homeschooler. Angrily. (And BTW, I don't think that SWB follows TWTM as closely as those people do. It's a starting point, and she would be the first one to say that you should teach your kids the best way you can figure out for them.)

 

People who are unschoolers would gently say that THEIR children follow THEIR paths because THEY have too much respect for THEIR children to impose paths upon them. With condescension toward me, and pity for my DD.

 

People who send their children to public schools would say that public schools are democratic, that Christian children need to be in them to witness, and that we must be kidding ourselves if we think that our children will be educated properly and socialized effectively. Angrily. And they would be intimidated by the term 'classical' or think it was snobby.

 

People who homeschool in other ways would be intimidated and think that this was snobby or that DD started Latin at 3 and currently cries every day when I try to make her translate Homer for 3 hours. They would not say so, but that is what they would think. Or that I must be extremely competitive and really pushing my DD hard.

 

Really, it's not worth it.

 

If I just say I homeschool, I can pass the bean dip almost immediately if appropriate. If I say I homeschool classically, I borrow a lot of unnecessary hastle.

 

Oh man! You nailed it. I don't declare myself as any particular "flavor" of homeschooling. I get into enough trouble just mentioning I homeschool. Our homeschool group avoids ANY mention of curriculum or methodology. I think it's the only way we can remain a cohesive unit. Once we've jumped into our boxes, we inevitably begin a game of bumper cars.

[Matryoshka]

Because I don't think I am one. :001_smile:

 

I bought TWTM waaay back when my kids were little, but never cracked it open. When they were little I was much more influenced by Waldorf and CM. Most of what I knew about Classical was from my friends who raved about TWTM and got me to buy it. :tongue_smilie:

 

I've pretty much left even Waldorf and CM behind (despite a lingering longing to do nature and picture study that never seems to translate into practice), and we just do "what works for us". We do lots of foreign languages (we're at 3 now!) but no Latin or Greek other than roots study. We do history chronologically (and I'm sure I gleaned that idea from my more classical friends via TWTM), but for us it's been 4+ years of American history - I'm hoping to start a rotation with the Ancients any time now - but we're past SOTW unless we decide to listen to the CDs for fun along with the other stuff we're doing. I steadfastly refuse to diagram a sentence (though I am actually a disturbingly enthusiastic grammar weenie in almost every other regard).

 

Since arriving on this board I've picked up a few things - my dds are outlining a book for science (along with doing lots of other stuff). I did get the new TWTM out of the library and read the logic stage stuff, as it seemed to be more in line with my thinking than the grammar stage stuff. And for my remaining grammar stage kid, I did buy my first SWB product and am using and WWE with her and enjoying it immensely. I do make sure they read lots of living books (mostly but not all connected with our history), and as they get older plan to include more Great Books, and am endeavoring to discuss some of them Socratically (have both Teaching the Classics and Reading Strands to guide me).

 

But I don't think any of that makes me even close to classical - I think I remain incorrigibly eclectic. :D

[Caribbean Queen]

People who homeschool in other ways would be intimidated and think that this was snobby or that DD started Latin at 3 and currently cries every day when I try to make her translate Homer for 3 hours. They would not say so, but that is what they would think. Or that I must be extremely competitive and really pushing my DD hard.

.

 

That is what I thought was pictured on The Well Trained Mind's first edition cover. Ha!

 

Now that I have read the book, I know it isn't like that.

[momto2Cs]

We're eclectic homeschoolers with a Classical slant.

 

:iagree: Us too.

 

We do two longer cycles rather than 3. We mix and match science. We don't do Latin yet, though I plan on having my kids do it in the future. We use ideas from TWTM, but don't base everything on it, since I mix in Waldorf and CM. Part of the reason we homeschool is this flexibility - to take from various sources what works for us and put it together like a puzzle.

[Storm Bay]

I guess people got tired of the "Is someone a Christian if they are trying out the theory of evolution on their kids through mass polygamous breeding" threads.

:lol::lol: Thanks for the laugh!