How to educate a child like well educated people in late 1700's?

[angela in ohio]

:001_smile:

So...is she going to be well educated? I can't tell. I know the basics will be covered (good old reading, writing, arithmetic).

 

That is well educated.

 

When you come to realize that you can't teach them every single thing, you start to appreciate the classical education model of teaching students the tools to learn. So it doesn't matter if she's memorized everything there is to know, as long as she knows the tools necessary to memorize information when she needs it (career, college, etc.) A PP talked about knowing how to analyze a problem and solve it. Those are the skills of dialectic (logic) and rhetoric. When you add these to good basic skills - the old 3Rs - you have a child prepared for a rapidly changing world.

 

I am giving my dc a tool box full of skills they will need to tackle whatever the world throws at them. My dd could be a farmer's wife or an astronaut, and she will know how to find out what she needs to do either (and enjoy doing it!) My ds could be an auto mechanic or a doctor, and he will know how to work hard and with integrity. Those are the marks of the well-educated, imho. It is not about what you know, but that you know how you learned it and how to learn more of it. :D

[Renee in NC]

It seems that most people own a home. There is painting, maintenence on painting, replacing or painting trim, scrubbing doors and walls from dirt/fingerprints, maintenence on gutters, fence, garden, grass, cleaning windows, replacing faucets, maintenence on furnace and A/C unit (like replacing filters, any appliance really... repairing dings on the wall, replacing flooring, cleaning carpets and furniture, cleaning the stove, cleaning out bathroom and kitchen vents and drains, replacing faucets, showerheads, sinks... We never run out of things to do. We sometimes wish we lived in an apartment. I am shocked that you all think home ownership in the suburbs is so easy.:confused:

 

As someone who used to have a farm and now lives in the suburbs/town -

 

All those things have to be done on the farm, too. As well as fencing, animal work (feeding, husbandry, butchering, etc.), clearing land, vegetable production, and the list goes on. There is no comparison at all. My life (and my dc's lives) are much easier (in terms of work) than before and we had a mini-farm - not even close to many others.

 

All that stuff you listed takes time, but none of it is hard physical labor. I do miss that for my dc!

 

I agree with what LizzyBee says as well - there is something different about life when it takes more than driving to the grocery store.

[hillfarm]

:001_smile:

I am giving my dc a tool box full of skills they will need to tackle whatever the world throws at them. My dd could be a farmer's wife or an astronaut, and she will know how to find out what she needs to do either (and enjoy doing it!) My ds could be an auto mechanic or a doctor, and he will know how to work hard and with integrity. Those are the marks of the well-educated, imho. It is not about what you know, but that you know how you learned it and how to learn more of it. :D

 

Thanks, Angela. Did you study a particular curriculum to learn these skills in an orderly manner, or do your dc "catch" that information as they use it in the course of their other day to day studies? With only so many hours in a day, do you actually prioritize the learning of these skills above other, more mundane things, like memorizing spelling rules?

 

Regarding farm work vs work in the suburbs or other urban setting, IMO only part of the benefit is the physical challenge. To me, the main thing is the relevance of the work. If we don't get the fence fixed, the sheep will get out and coyotes will eat them. Then we won't have the sheep as our food or income source. I think it is tough to find work with as much obvious relevance to young people in more urban places. Not that yard work, gardens, home repair aren't important, because they certainly are. But it is hard to get a teen to see that. They only see that no one will die if the leaves don't get raked to the curb. And they haven't yet recognized the importance of purposeful physical activity, even if said activity is not a life and death matter.

 

Perhaps that is the key, finding work for our children where the stakes are truly high. For example, help move these boxes and make this food because if we don't feed these people, they will starve. Help install safe heating in this poor person's home or they stand a very real chance of freezing to death this winter. Maybe even missions related things--raise funds and send supplies or this village will suffer from life-threatening disease. Kids are so quick to challenge that which they consider unnecessary. They don't always buy into the idea that we need to keep things clean and looking nice. But if something serious is at stake, perhaps they would apply themselves at a higher intensity and feel a deeper sense of responsibility and accomplishment related to their work.

 

(Goodness, it will probably be good when things get back to normal on Monday and I have less time for pondering and typing!)

 

PS: Dd and I just got back from a mile hike in the snow to check on my mother. Not exactly life and death, but important never the less to show dd that we need to be proactive and check on others during bad weather. Fed the chickens, checked a couple of pastures, and fixed a gate as we crossed through the fields on a shortcut to her house. Hopefully taught diligence and that a penny's worth of prevention (and maintenance) is worth a pound of cure...;)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

But I think growing up with less money and dependent on the land for food and warmth (as in cutting our own firewood) makes kids more aware of the VALUE of hard work.

Oh, I see.

[Colleen in NS]

Dd would diligently study her lists of dates and facts, would be able to parrot them back to me, but a couple of days later could barely recall the basics.

 

But I worry that she will not be well educated because we are not memorizing lists of facts, she doesn't know all the major battles of WWII, she probably can't recall each layer of the atmosphere.... Am I screwing up her education and allowing her to become a slacker by permitting this????

 

We do what I consider necessary memory work - math facts, grammar definitions, Latin forms - because those are skill related and needed to do the skill work. Memory work related to content things like lit/sci/hist is more flexible. After examining what is suggested for these things in WTM, I figured out that the suggestions are "broad sweeps," and then you can move to the finer details, as time and interest permits. For example - all the major wars of history that are listed in the back of the KF history book. That is a broad sweep of historical wars, that span thousands of years, and it didn't take long to memorize when we set it to music. And it's a great list of "pegs" to hang other finer details on. The other things like lists of Egyptian pharoahs, rulers of England...are more pointed towards specific years of chronological study and can be useful, but you can pick whatever is pertinent to your child's study, or let him pick. In science: when we studied the human body last year, I had my kids memorize the ten or so major body systems. It's a broad sweep. I had intentions of working on bones, blood components, teeth....but it didn't get very far. Oh well, they know the major systems and can go to finer details in a later biology year, or later in their life if needed or wanted for some reason. And since last year was a biology year, I also had them memorize "broad sweeps" like taxonomic ranks, then kingdoms of life, then animal kingdom phyla, and a few other things, going finer and finer in detail. I just went as far as we could from broad to fine, knowing we can always add more detail later. But they have the broad sweep pegs in their minds, to hang later reading info. on. For lit., I just let them memorize any poem that appealed to them.

 

So, things like the layers of the atmosphere or battles in WWII are finer detail - may or may not be important to your child later on. But I find that the broad sweep memory work is like a framework on which to build. And I don't have to cram a ton of it in each year...just pick away at it, and let them pick the finer detailed memory work to do, within our frame.

[angela in ohio]

Thanks, Angela. Did you study a particular curriculum to learn these skills in an orderly manner, or do your dc "catch" that information as they use it in the course of their other day to day studies? With only so many hours in a day, do you actually prioritize the learning of these skills above other, more mundane things, like memorizing spelling rules?

 

I teach it deliberately, but not through one curriculum. I always think of the two lessons I am teaching: the content and the skills. So we do memorize list of things, but at the same time I am talking to them about various methods you can use to memorize information, how to choose the most effective method for the situation, when to use memorization in a class, what the process "looks" like in your brain when you memorize, etc. We use logic to analyze specific content, maybe using a diagram for example, but at the same time, I am talking about the different types of ways to categorize information, which one to use in which situation, etc. It requires an involved teacher, and it requires a dialogue. So you teach content and skills at the same time. It doesn't require much more time, but it does require a teacher (mom, tutor) with an arsenal of tools to share.

 

The more I understand the classical model, and the more that I see that it is primarily about developing tools of learning and not Latin or chronological history or great books, the better I am at teaching dc to learn. :001_smile:

[ladydusk]

So we do memorize list of things, but at the same time I am talking to them about various methods you can use to memorize information, how to choose the most effective method for the situation, when to use memorization in a class, what the process "looks" like in your brain when you memorize, etc.

 

Angela, do you have any resources that taught you these tools and how to choose the appropriate one? I only really know about "brute force repetition" ... well and the occasional "Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge" type.

[zenmom79]

Have you ever read the book "Endangered Minds"? I just got done reading it a few weeks ago and it is what led me to a classical approach, and to turn off ipods, tv, radio, games, even learning games. People are constantly putting "dumbed down" material in front of kids so kids find it harder and harder to comprehend anything that is not dumbed down. For instance, instead of reading a great classic by the original author, kids are reading the dumbed down version. They never fully understand full comprehension. I think that is where thomas jeffereson and george washington had the upside. They were forced to comprehend what GREAT writers were writing. Nothing was ever dumbed down for them. Just my thought.

[IsabelC]

Have you ever read the book "Endangered Minds"? I just got done reading it a few weeks ago and it is what led me to a classical approach, and to turn off ipods, tv, radio, games, even learning games. People are constantly putting "dumbed down" material in front of kids so kids find it harder and harder to comprehend anything that is not dumbed down. For instance, instead of reading a great classic by the original author, kids are reading the dumbed down version. They never fully understand full comprehension. I think that is where thomas jeffereson and george washington had the upside. They were forced to comprehend what GREAT writers were writing. Nothing was ever dumbed down for them. Just my thought.

That book sounds really interesting; I'm putting it on hold at my library :001_smile:

[angela&4boys]

Another great book regarding the abuse of entertainment (technological and otherwise) is Amusing Ourselves to Death. I saw it recommended in the Veritas catalog and then stumbled upon it at a used book sale. I've just begun to read it and it has already affected my way of thinking when one of the boys plops down in front of a screen. It's truly a bad habit and I confess I'm not the best example!

 

This really has been an insightful thread. Although I've had many of the same thoughts, it's been one thing to have the knowledge and a whole other to actually apply it. :blushing: I need to set the bar higher for myself and my dc. Many thanks to the op and all the contributors.

Edited January 2, 2010 by angela&4boys

[mama2cntrykids]

I haven't read but two responses so far, but in my opinion, I think if parents are diligent enough they might come close. I think that given our culture/society today that it could be extremely difficult honestly. So I guess that I really don't know! Sorry, I know that really didn't help.

[Another Lynn]

Thanks, Angela. Did you study a particular curriculum to learn these skills in an orderly manner, or do your dc "catch" that information as they use it in the course of their other day to day studies? With only so many hours in a day, do you actually prioritize the learning of these skills above other, more mundane things, like memorizing spelling rules?

 

Regarding farm work vs work in the suburbs or other urban setting, IMO only part of the benefit is the physical challenge. To me, the main thing is the relevance of the work. If we don't get the fence fixed, the sheep will get out and coyotes will eat them. Then we won't have the sheep as our food or income source. I think it is tough to find work with as much obvious relevance to young people in more urban places. Not that yard work, gardens, home repair aren't important, because they certainly are. But it is hard to get a teen to see that. They only see that no one will die if the leaves don't get raked to the curb. And they haven't yet recognized the importance of purposeful physical activity, even if said activity is not a life and death matter.

 

Perhaps that is the key, finding work for our children where the stakes are truly high. For example, help move these boxes and make this food because if we don't feed these people, they will starve. Help install safe heating in this poor person's home or they stand a very real chance of freezing to death this winter. Maybe even missions related things--raise funds and send supplies or this village will suffer from life-threatening disease. Kids are so quick to challenge that which they consider unnecessary. They don't always buy into the idea that we need to keep things clean and looking nice. But if something serious is at stake, perhaps they would apply themselves at a higher intensity and feel a deeper sense of responsibility and accomplishment related to their work.

 

(Goodness, it will probably be good when things get back to normal on Monday and I have less time for pondering and typing!)

 

PS: Dd and I just got back from a mile hike in the snow to check on my mother. Not exactly life and death, but important never the less to show dd that we need to be proactive and check on others during bad weather. Fed the chickens, checked a couple of pastures, and fixed a gate as we crossed through the fields on a shortcut to her house. Hopefully taught diligence and that a penny's worth of prevention (and maintenance) is worth a pound of cure...;)

 

I agree with SO much you have said here. But, I'm thinking about the ideas you suggest for relevant work for suburban and urban kids. I'm sure I'll sound very cold hearted and unChristian, but I think these things (food for the starving, heat for someone who would die without it, etc.) will still not seem relevant to most youth because they are removed from themselves and their families. I'm rude enough to say this without offering any other ideas :tongue_smilie:. Sorry.

 

I have enjoyed this entire thread and I'm sure I'll come back to read it again and again. I'm convicted on two issues - where we set the bar (and even when I try to set it high, our cultural choices tend to erode it) and what motivates us (and to what degree we are motivated).

[Ester Maria]

It's been a very interesting thread to follow; and before I forget, everyone with ANY reading knowledge of German is more than warmly suggested to read the book entitled Theorie der Unbildung: die Irrtümer der Wissensgesellschaft, which roughly translates as "The Theory of Un-Education: the misconceptions of the 'knowledge society'", written by the Austrian university professor Konrad Paul Liessmann. (Those who now think that it will be too much of struggle reading German with only basic knowledge and having to consult a dictionary all the time - go for it anyway, trust me that it's REALLY worth it if you're interested in this topic.) That book pinpoints, but precisely pinpoints, most of the things that are wrong with today's education; also, for some "mysterious" reasons, the only translations that I know of are to more or less obscure Slavic languages such as Polish or Croatian (a very good opportunity to wonder WHY certain types of books are being systematically ignored by the anglophone market).

 

Now, back to the discussion:

People are constantly putting "dumbed down" material in front of kids so kids find it harder and harder to comprehend anything that is not dumbed down. For instance, instead of reading a great classic by the original author, kids are reading the dumbed down version.

This.

 

I agree with many of the things that were said in this thread, but I think this is one of the KEY aspects of today's education that are wrong, even in the context of the Neo-Classical education.

Children are not reading enough text - full, original text, if possible in its original language. Children are reading WAY TOO MUCH of the dumbed down text, simplified versions, "Guide to"s, "X made easy"s and alike, often to a point that the only original text they encounter are solidified parts taken out of context, in a form of a sentence or few.

For example, I really don't care and am not impressed the least by a child knows who said "I think, therefore I am.", even if they know to cite it in Latin and even if they know something about the general context of that sentence - all of that are pieces of "quiz knowledge" , trivia, not the actual knowledge. I care if they studied the part of the text with the full context of that phrase, can reconstruct the argument that lead to it, contextualize the whole discussion in the context of certain philosophical disciplines - now, THAT is already a something, and a very good start to build on. But the piece of trivia, the Latin quote itself, means close to nothing to me if we got it from a dumbed down "Intro to philosophy" or from "Latin quotes made fun. Let's see how many of them we can enumerate and deprive of context". That's not the type of education I want for my kids.

 

Text is crucial, text is the lacking element in the schools today. Also, most of the textbooks I have seen in my life remind me of colorbooks I would use with preschoolers and are written more to amuse than to instruct.

Most of the kids I know, even most of the ones from "academic" families who were given the privilege of good education, seriously lack the ability to follow the developing of a written argument, even more so to discuss it, contextualize it, let alone getting to a point of having your own say on what many of those arguments discuss.

 

Of course, you can't possibly go through all the text, and through all the texts in their originals and entirety - some kind of selection will inevitably have to be done. But we must be very, very careful about that selection (kids can read schund in their free time, it's a perfectly normal part of growing up and I have no problem with it, I'm talking about the selection "for school" material here) and about what with do with the text when we have read it. I think most schools fail on this test TWICE: one, the selection is CATASTROPHIC (concretely speaking about Literature and Philosophy in high school in case it even exists); two, the text is being either merely read, if not skimmed, either hyperanalyzed and read into, instead of finding a balance and "studying" it.

 

I could make this post much, much longer, but that's generally what my .02 are.

[hillfarm]

.. But, I'm thinking about the ideas you suggest for relevant work for suburban and urban kids. I'm sure I'll sound very cold hearted and unChristian, but I think these things (food for the starving, heat for someone who would die without it, etc.) will still not seem relevant to most youth because they are removed from themselves and their families. I'm rude enough to say this without offering any other ideas :tongue_smilie:. Sorry.

 

 

 

That's the best I could think of!:D Dh and I lived in a major city for several years before moving back here to the farm. To my shame, I really couldn't think of any other ideas that might motivate a teen to serious responsibility and effort. Dh and I even joke about our time in the city as being back "when the living was easy". Of course, there's plenty of work to be done there, but it just didn't seem as life and death as work here on the farm does. Or quite as relentless.

 

Perhaps we need to explore whether any of the exemplary people we can think of or world leaders grew up in an urban environment and how they were able to navigate that. I thought of a few, but upon more consideration, everyone of them have said that they came up through very humble beginnings and had to struggle to find a way out of that.

 

Upon this cursory examination, it seems that an easy childhood may not be good for producing exemplary adults. So we have to find another way!:D Even though we live on a farm, I perceive that dd has had an easy childhood. And as an only child, she has been able to grow up a little "princessy". Dh and I try to combat that, but you all know how it is--if you have the means, the temptation is always there to give your child good gifts and to make them smile.

 

It's comforting to know that others are grappling with these issues also, that I am not the only one and have missed the boat. I really appreciate this discussion and am already formulating some ideas for dealing with the situation.

[Jane in NC]

 

 

For example, I really don't care and am not impressed the least by a child knows who said "I think, therefore I am.", even if they know to cite it in Latin and even if they know something about the general context of that sentence - all of that are pieces of "quiz knowledge" , trivia, not the actual knowledge. I care if they studied the part of the text with the full context of that phrase, can reconstruct the argument that lead to it, contextualize the whole discussion in the context of certain philosophical disciplines - now, THAT is already a something, and a very good start to build on. But the piece of trivia, the Latin quote itself, means close to nothing to me if we got it from a dumbed down "Intro to philosophy" or from "Latin quotes made fun.

 

 

Nodding in complete agreement. It boggles the mind that so many people seem to believe that mastering the so called facts as presented in Jeopardy or in a Trivia Pursuit game is the ultimate point of an education!

 

Part of the problem may also be due to a sense of general pragmatism in American culture. If one cannot profit (usually financially) from something, many people see that something as useless. Take poetry or symphonic music. Neither seems revered in my culture. Is it because the arts rarely reap financial benefit? Is it because neither poetry nor symphonic music is always understood on the surface, hence requiring some work to be appreciated?

 

Further, as a culture, we have taken a subject like mathematics that revolves around logical proof and reduced it to a series of algorithms. Most American children only see mathematical proofs in a high school geometry class if at all. Some feel there is no point in studying proofs because they are not on standardized exams.

 

The focus on the standardized exam does not help in that most of these exams are not much more than multiple choice: distillation of information to the trivial.

[KrissiK]

I think part of the reason we don't have more T Jeffersons and G. Washingtons is that... well, those are extraordinary men and most of us are ordinary people. I'm not sure if the education or curriculum has much to do with it. Well, I take that back. I think it does have something to do with it but I look at my boys. I've been a little frustrated lately because they don't really like school. I try to make it interesting, hands-on science, trade books instead of readers, all the stuff we're supposed to do to "engage the learner" and they couldn't care less. They'd rather do the A Beka science reader instead of an experiment. Seriously. It finally dawned on me that they are young boys of average intelligence who would rather be playing. DH said, too, that they will probably engage more when they get a little older (they're 6 & 5 now). So, I'm not going to worry about it anymore. I'm just going to do school with them, make it as interesting as I can, but have realistic expectations and not kill myself to make the perfect lesson. I read the bio of John Adams by David McCullough and he wasn't just an ordinary well educated man. He was amazing, but he had it inside him, as did his wife. I could never be like them, no matter how well read or knowlegeable I was.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Further, as a culture, we have taken a subject like mathematics that revolves around logical proof and reduced it to a series of algorithms. Most American children only see mathematical proofs in a high school geometry class if at all. Some feel there is no point in studying proofs because they are not on standardized exams.

Where do I find proofs outside of high school geometry? Thanks.

[Jane in NC]

Where do I find proofs outside of high school geometry? Thanks.

 

Dolciani!

 

Jane (Official WTM Dolciani Proselytizer)

[zenmom79]

I think part of the reason we don't have more T Jeffersons and G. Washingtons is that... well, those are extraordinary men and most of us are ordinary people. I'm not sure if the education or curriculum has much to do with it.

 

I have to disagree with this.:confused: I think that even they were ordinary people but had an extraordinary love for learning and great books. We are all ordinary people with something extraordinary about us. I refuse to think my children are not capible of an extraordinary education. I am laying the foundation for a great education in them by first laying an extraordinary foundation in the love for learning. When children have a love of learning, great books by great authors, and parents that are not afraid to learn something with them it makes for extraordinary education. Nothing more. You can have someone extremely ignorant that studies their hind end off because they LOVE to learn and they can become intelligent. Just as you can have someone with a very high IQ with no love for learning that comes across completely ignorant. JMO, but there is no such thing as extraordinary people. It is all in how they are educated, their love or lack their of for learning and the tools provided for them. :)

[Colleen in NS]

Dolciani!

 

Jane (Official WTM Dolciani Proselytizer)

 

:lol: Rock on, Jane, rock on!!

 

(pssst, for anyone who wants to investigate this, search for threads under the Dolciani tag - I tagged as many good ones as I could find a few months ago)

[stripe]

I think most schools fail on this test TWICE: one, the selection is CATASTROPHIC (concretely speaking about Literature and Philosophy in high school in case it even exists); two, the text is being either merely read, if not skimmed, either hyperanalyzed and read into, instead of finding a balance and "studying" it.

 

Have I mentioned before how much I wish you were my teacher? Your points are so insightful. I think you're so right about the exposure to text. In fact, I had an interesting conversation with an urban high school librarian about the consequences of all the testing and teaching to the test and so forth; she had noticed a dramatic decline in students' tendency to borrow books AND their likelihood of reading books as part of their classes. Indeed, they are expected to read small excerpts and "respond" (which usually means to summarize what was just said) and this is what constitutes reading comprehension. This reminds me of why I loathe geography bees and the like. But I think there is something very intellectually lazy about this that is also present in other aspects of our modern society. Even cereal and milk is too difficult of a breakfast; instant pudding so hard to make. Must. Buy. Ready. Made.

 

And I wish I could read German; I would love to read that book.

[Kfamily]

Stripe, I agree wholeheartedly with all this about Ester Maria.

:iagree:

[KrissiK]

I'm sorry, I don't know exactly how to do the quote thing here.

 

"You can have someone extremely ignorant that studies their hind end off because they LOVE to learn and they can become intelligent. Just as you can have someone with a very high IQ with no love for learning that comes across completely ignorant."

 

 

zenmom, I'm not sure what you mean by contrasting "ignorant" and "high IQ" because I think that ignorance had nothing to do with IQ, but rather how much education you have. IQ is something you are born with, at least that is my understanding. A person who is ignorant, certainly can develop a love of learning and learn on their own. A person with a low IQ is limited in what they are actually able to learn.

 

JMO, but there is no such thing as extraordinary people

 

 

While education does mold us and shape us, and, I agree, most people are born with certain gifts and talents, I must most respectfully disagree with that statement. I do not believe everyone can (or should) become President and that there are people who are born with extraordinary talents and history shows this.

[angela in ohio]

I think part of the reason we don't have more T Jeffersons and G. Washingtons is that... well, those are extraordinary men and most of us are ordinary people. I'm not sure if the education or curriculum has much to do with it.

 

I do think society, expectations, and education are the difference. Expectations are so low, society places so little value on education and intelligence, and our education system exists to conform everyone to one medicore standard. There's not much chance for extraordinary anymore. I have met a few kids who are extraordinary. Every one of them is in private school with really involved parents or is homeschooled. I think we have an opportunity to have extraordinary kiddos come out of homeschooling, but we have to be willing to set our own standards and not be limited by the status quo.

Edited January 3, 2010 by angela in ohio

[bethben]

I think that the homeschool movement may be recapturing some of the things that have been lost in the shuffle to get better tests scores as validity that kids are getting a great education. I also think that there's the blessing of God on the whole thing. I don't think we're there yet, but I think there is the capability to produce more of those great men and women who shaped our country in this homeschool movement.

Beth

[JulieD]

I've been enjoying this thread, so I'm going to add my very random thoughts.

 

I do think some people are extraordinarily gifted. I, for instance, love playing piano. I play frequently, and I studied it seriously for over 7 years. And you know what? I'm not a great pianist. I play well; I give pleasure to other people; but I have reached the limits of my ability. There is something missing that I am never going to have.

 

Of course a good education allows a great mind to develop fully. And a good education can benefit anyone, just as I've benefited from my piano study. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't educate our children. I want my children to grow up able to think things through, to empathize, to work through difficulties. I think a good education will help out with that. I don't think it will likely turn them into extraordinary people.

 

It does depend on the definition of extraordinary, though. If the colonists had been happy and content, would Thomas Jefferson be considered extraordinary today? Would he have made his name in another field? It seems quite possible, yet he wasn't a specialist. His strength was in being a Renaissance man. Even if we didn't know of him today, I think his friends would have recognized him as extraordinary the way Angela is using it. Perhaps that is the way Zenmom is using it, too?

 

I think a positive thing about the growing number of homeschoolers is the affect it has on everyone's thinking. People are beginning to realize again that neither a piece of paper nor a brick building has much to do with knowledge. You can educate yourself; you don't have to be given an education. Some day they may even realize that you have to educate yourself--no one can give you an education.

 

The internet has also changed things. Everything on the internet must be questioned. I feel we had gotten to the point where we accepted what an authority said on the matter without further investigation. The internet is sharpening our thinking skills. (Some of us anyway.)

 

And the internet brings thinking people together in a way that used to only be possible in school settings. I only know a handful of people that I could talk to about education, but here there are hundreds of thoughtful people sharing their insights. When I was younger there were many subjects that I wished I had time to explore at a university. But there aren't near as many now. Many of the courses would be superficial compared to what I've learned from groups of knowledgable people on the internet. And the classes wouldn't be filled with people who love the subject. So the internet has allowed me to educate myself on topics that I couldn't have learned about otherwise.

 

On the other hand, I think the lack of reality in people's lives is not good at all. There were so many thoughtful comments on the type of work that improves the mind and heart. I keep wondering how to balance everything out. (Although this long post on the internet this late is probably not the right way.)

[TechWife]

:iagree: That's what we are doing too. We are more relaxed academically so we can focus on application.

 

I think we need to define the term education. I think education is where you learn to identify problems and create solutions. That's what we're doing in this homeschool anyway. :)

 

I started a new thread to follow through on these thoughts, please look for it - I'd love your input.

 

Thanks

[Tammyla]

Great post again, Nan.

 

I found time to read this entire thread this morning, what an interesting discussion:).

 

I think your problem might be the ages of your children. I think when your children are older, 15 or 16 or so, you will see the results you are looking for. Meanwhile, you have to take it on faith that the things you are doing will eventually produce results and not hop around too much. There are many good ways to be educated, but if you hop around from one to the other frequently, you run the risk of just getting started in many of those ways but not ever getting far enough in any one of them to see results. You want great thinkers who can apply their knowledge to real life situations. That is a goal that will work fine. I think the danger is that you will try to fit in too many applications. Check for yourself since my experience is limited, but the great thinkers I know all learned to be great thinkers by becoming experts in one or two places and then, as adults, discovering that they could apply their knowledge and skills more widely. I think there are many ways to learn to think. Some people do it by aiming their education towards being able to read the classics in their original language (the LCC people). Some people do it by aiming their education towards logic and rhetoric (debate club, writing). Some people concentrate on math and proofs. Some concentrate on technology and inventions. Others on art or music. Others on science experiments. Others on historical research with its causes and connections. Some on politics and government. Some on great books. Etc. It probably isn't possible to do all those extensively all the time. I think you are better off choosing a medium that suits your family's interests, expertise, and situation, and making sure that you are doing that well and extensively, building up a high level of skills and making sure that you investigate many applications. Then do the rest of your subjects more lightly and watch for individual talents and interests to develop as your children get older. I'm not sure how helpful all that is, since it is so general. I found it useful to look at older teenagers and pick a few competant ones as models. For example, my technically oriented son has an older friend who is skilled at finding information on the internet. He pulls his laptop out when I'm driving them around and looks up anything that they might be curious about, from rules for a game to historical or scientific facts to characters in films. This made me realize that if I wanted a child who could do that, I had better provide a laptop and internet service and time to practise. I admire another young friend who travels competently on his own. That tells me that I need to allow my son to travel on his own. Look around for examples of who you would like your children to be and ask them how they learned to do something or become good at something. People usually are happy to tell you and the answers are often not what you would think.

 

HTH

-Nan

Edited January 4, 2010 by Tammyla

[Caribbean Queen]

I really want to know what Jefferson's education was like. I even got the book A Thomas Jefferson Education and it did not tell me enough about Thomas Jefferson's education. The book has was renamed in later editions. I think it is called A Leadership Education now.

 

I read through this whole thread and it didn't tell me enough either. There was interesting stuff about maturity, and whether or not we would want to use a Thomas Jefferson education - but what was Jefferson's childhood education like?

 

Ambleside Online-ish?

 

:bigear:

[Jill- OK]

but what was Jefferson's childhood education like?

 

Ambleside Online-ish?

 

:bigear:

 

You can read some of his bios, I guess, but here's a condensed version, from Wikipedia...

 

In 1752, Jefferson began attending a local school run by William Douglas, a Scottish minister. At the age of nine, Jefferson began studying Latin, Greek, and French. In 1757, when he was 14 years old, his father died. Jefferson inherited about 5,000 acres (20 km²) of land and dozens of slaves. He built his home there, which eventually became known as Monticello.

 

After his father's death, he was taught at the school of the learned minister James Maury from 1758 to 1760. The school was in Fredericksville Parish near Gordonsville, Virginia, twelve miles (19 km) from Shadwell, and Jefferson boarded with Maury's family. There he received a classical education and studied history and science.

 

In 1760 Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg at the age of 16; he studied there for two years, graduating with highest honors in 1762. At William & Mary, he enrolled in the philosophy school and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small, who introduced the enthusiastic Jefferson to the writings of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton (Jefferson called them the "three greatest men the world had ever produced").[7] He also perfected his French, carried his Greek grammar book wherever he went, practiced the violin, and read Tacitus and Homer. A keen and diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields and, according to the family tradition, frequently studied fifteen hours a day. His closest college friend, John Page of Rosewell, reported that Jefferson "could tear himself away from his dearest friends to fly to his studies."

 

I think that this was pretty standard, for those who could afford it in childhood/early adulthood, among families in the 1700s.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Jill, OK

[Jill- OK]

 

In 1752, Jefferson began attending a local school run by William Douglas, a Scottish minister. At the age of nine, Jefferson began studying Latin, Greek, and French. In 1757, when he was 14 years old, his father died. Jefferson inherited about 5,000 acres (20 km²) of land and dozens of slaves. He built his home there, which eventually became known as Monticello.

 

After his father's death, he was taught at the school of the learned minister James Maury from 1758 to 1760. The school was in Fredericksville Parish near Gordonsville, Virginia, twelve miles (19 km) from Shadwell, and Jefferson boarded with Maury's family. There he received a classical education and studied history and science.

 

In 1760 Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg at the age of 16; he studied there for two years, graduating with highest honors in 1762. At William & Mary, he enrolled in the philosophy school and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small, who introduced the enthusiastic Jefferson to the writings of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton (Jefferson called them the "three greatest men the world had ever produced").[7] He also perfected his French, carried his Greek grammar book wherever he went, practiced the violin, and read Tacitus and Homer. A keen and diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields and, according to the family tradition, frequently studied fifteen hours a day. His closest college friend, John Page of Rosewell, reported that Jefferson "could tear himself away from his dearest friends to fly to his studies."

 

I think that this was pretty standard, for those who could afford it in childhood/early adulthood, among families in the 1700s.

 

...that Benjamin Franklin attended school for a grand total of two years, before being taken out to work at ten.

 

I remember just a bit from the bio of his that I read, but he was inquisitive, and a big reader, and I think that he copied essays/articles to perfect his writing style. (He was writing articles at a young age).

[iwka]

Beth,

 

I've had similar questions and I found the CLAA.

Blessings.

[hillfarm]

IMO, Jefferson represented the intersection between intellect, enthusiasm, and opportunity. When all those things are present at high levels and collide, greatness results. Franklin, on the other hand, may have only had high levels of intellect and enthusiasm, lacking a bit in the opportunity sector. Of course, it is all extremely variable since circumstances and environment play a huge part in how this greatness manifests. I'm sure there were plenty of contemporaries of Jefferson who had the intellect but little opportunity and others who had plenty of opportunity but sadly lacked intellect or enthusiasm.

 

These threads have got me motivated. Plus we are covered in snow with temps that only rarely climb to 20 degrees. So I have been working on a survey of leadership, character, and philosophy materials for children. I'll let you all know what I find when I am done.

 

So far it has been quite interesting and now that I am looking for it, I am seeing several important traits in dd. I am working to nurture the good and squelch the bad!

[angela in ohio]

I'm sure there were plenty of contemporaries of Jefferson who had the intellect but little opportunity and others who had plenty of opportunity but sadly lacked intellect or enthusiasm.

 

I suspect that many of the day were just as well-educated as Jefferson, but because they weren't famous, we don't know the details of their lives. Every time we visit some little dinky historical museum, I am amazed by the accomplishments and intelligence of the figures biographied.

 

A pp posted the history of Jefferson's education. What stands out to me are the mentors, and the men who cared enough to start schools for the next generation. IMHO, that is what we are missing. Also, culture at the time admired intelligence and knowledge. (I don't think Jefferson would even be elected today, unless he buffed up a little and got a better haircut than the next guy.) It is easier to maintain a drive to learn when the entire culture isn't working against you. You see the same when results come in about other countries' academic success over ours. They are cultures where learning is respected and expected.

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

I know this is an old thread, but I recently came across the

THE CURRICULUM OF THE BOSTON LATIN GRAMMAR SCHOOL (1712)

and thought of this thread.

[Lovedtodeath]

Interesting Happy.

 

"Java Man: How Caffeine Created the Modern World."

 

Maybe it was all of the tea that they drank.;)

[Nan in Mass]

Did they only study Latin? Now that I am recovering a little from the thought of all that memorizing, I guess I can see that it would be a splendidly efficient way to learn to "speak" a foreign language.

[Chez J]

And, I love the discussion. One thing that I didn't notice anyone mention is the fact that we have 200 more years of information to study. Following the WTM, we have nearly and year and a half of history lessons that, for our founding fathers, was yet to be lived. So, we have WAY more to learn than they did. More history, more literature, more science, more technological advances, more health care science, complicated economic and financial lessons, etc. Even some math was invented to cope with modern science. So, I'm not sure that we can really compare accurately.

 

Lesley

[titianmom]

My "ideal" educated child would look like the educated Thomas Jeffersons and George Washingtons. People who started this country knew how to think and reason in their early 20's. They seemed to be able to handle large responsiblities at early ages. The stuff people read back then for general reading was so deep, we have trouble reading it today. I heard about a town in the late 1700's where they used to "draw straws" to pick the next leaders. Everyone was considered to be well educated and able to think well enough to lead well.

 

So, the question is - how do we educate our children when our standard is that high? My husband and I - though college educated never even acheived that type of education and now just don't have the energy as we plop into bed after the kids go to bed. So, how does one go about this? Do we move to the middle of nowhere away from society and only have certain books available to read:001_huh: (lol)? Can this even be done in our society anymore?

 

Beth

 

But it can be done. You just have to get rid of the TV altogether, and all the ridiculous pop teenie-bopper magazines and music, various kid-centric entertainment venues like videos/games, remove the children from their peers who know more about Lady Gaga than they do about English grammar (dumbing-down influences; believe me, I love kids and work with them all the time. It isn't the kids so much as the culture and parenting that's at issue, here, and in fairness to the parents, they're fighting culture, too.), put them through sugar withdrawl and get rid of all the junk/junk food they ingest, move to a very rural area with fresh air and nature to observe, give them plenty of manual labor to do to keep them fit (Improve their health both mentally and physically), and surround them with people who have some moral standards and excellent work ethics (surround them daily with positive role models).

 

Then you might have a chance of introducing them to an excellent, more classical education that will be as successful as the educated back in the 1700s/1800s. Environment is as important as the curriculum, IMHO.

 

You have to start this when they're an infant. Trying to take modern teenagers and throwing them in the above scenario is prob not a good idea unless you have a very tough skin and can handle looking for runaways on a reg basis. Eventually they'd prob adjust--they'd get pass the belief of, "I need to be entertained constantly. You aren't entertaining me. I have to work more than I can goof off. Therefore, I hate you"-- and be better for it, but the first couple of years would be a nightmare, prob.

 

Kim

[iwka]

The most important thing is to get teachers who can do that. How can you teach something you have no clue about?

[Lovedtodeath]

ITA Kim.

[stripe]

put them through sugar withdrawl and get rid of all the junk/junk food they ingest, move to a very rural area with fresh air and nature to observe, give them plenty of manual labor to do to keep them fit (Improve their health both mentally and physically), and surround them with people who have some moral standards and excellent work ethics (surround them daily with positive role models).

 

Given that I am not entirely sure an 18th century child is what I want, and given that my children would not have been considered worth educating in that time period by many of those educated people then,...I am still sufficiently interested to ask you this: do you have an inspiring rural location in mind, where there are well-educated, morally upstanding people who only eat healthily? I would certainly like to pay such a place a visit.

[Corraleno]

You just have to get rid of the TV altogether, and all the ridiculous pop teenie-bopper magazines and music, various kid-centric entertainment venues like videos/games,

Check ~ We do record documentaries on the History, Science, Nat Geo, PBS, and Discovery Channels, but we don't watch "regular" TV.

 

remove the children from their peers who know more about Lady Gaga than they do about English grammar

Check

 

put them through sugar withdrawl and get rid of all the junk/junk food they ingest

Check ~ we belong to an organic CSA, from which we get 85% of our produce, dairy, & meat. We bake our own whole grain bread, and grow the rest of our veg ourselves.

 

move to a very rural area with fresh air and nature to observe

Check ~ We live on several acres down a dirt road, 5 minutes walk from a huge Nature Reserve.

 

give them plenty of manual labor to do to keep them fit (Improve their health both mentally and physically)

Check ~ The kids have sole responsibility for taking care of the chickens, often help muck out the barn, do a lot of weeding & watering, and help with any building & landscaping projects. They also do their own laundry and way more household chores than any of their friends.

 

and surround them with people who have some moral standards and excellent work ethics (surround them daily with positive role models).

Check ~ assuming DH and I count. :D

 

You have to start this when they're an infant. Trying to take modern teenagers and throwing them in the above scenario is prob not a good idea unless you have a very tough skin and can handle looking for runaways on a reg basis.

Well, I started when I pulled DS out of PS at the age of 10. Good thing I didn't wait 3 more years, because then it would have been impossible, huh? :tongue_smilie:

 

 

OTOH, despite apparently having the perfect environment for giving my children an 18th century education, that's not what I want for them. I hope that what I'm giving them is a deep, meaningful, passionate, and joyful 21st century education.

 

Jackie

Edited March 26, 2010 by Corraleno

[titianmom]

I think people are reading me the wrong way. I'm basically saying it isn't always possible to go back in time.

 

As far as eating habits, I was considering fresh farm food vs processed foods and plenty of fresh air. Now, I've visited colonial communities (mock up) with historians who told us that the calorie counts were very high back then. But, knowing what we know about cutting out the fat but still using fresh foods, I think it that this might just improve children's concentration and focus and overall health. And there have been studies that too much sugar in our diets isn't a good thing and can affect children's concentration, et al. They didn't eat much sugar back then, not like today, anyway.

 

Any country farm will do, as far as fresh air and fresh fruits and veggies, or even a rural area where the kids can run and play and have access to lots of farmers' markets for fresh foods, etc. Watch the pesticides, of course. ;)

 

What our culture lacks more than anything is a slower pace, don't you think? We just don't have time to sit around and just think anymore. That's one of the main reasons I homeschool. I was in the middle of the rat race making good money, but the baby is screaming in the backseat all the way home (half hour commute) down a busy 6 lane freeway. I decided that there had to be a better way to live. Some can live with the stress, I chose not too. :)

 

And as far as the comment on well-educated in rural areas, that's not what I said. Some of the smartest people I know never made it past the 8th grade, like my grandfather. They were people of integrity who worked hard for what they had and never asked for a handout. You could trust them and their wisdom.

 

What I said was surround them with people with some moral standards and strong work ethics.

 

Take care,

Kim

 

Given that I am not entirely sure an 18th century child is what I want, and given that my children would not have been considered worth educating in that time period by many of those educated people then,...I am still sufficiently interested to ask you this: do you have an inspiring rural location in mind, where there are well-educated, morally upstanding people who only eat healthily? I would certainly like to pay such a place a visit.

[stripe]

And as far as the comment on well-educated in rural areas, that's not what I said. Some of the smartest people I know never made it past the 8th grade, like my grandfather. They were people of integrity who worked hard for what they had and never asked for a handout. You could trust them and their wisdom.

? Er, I never said people in rural areas aren't well-educated (I also didn't say rural folks don't have morals), and neither did anyone else. I asked where I might find such a place. I was looking for ideas.

 

What our culture lacks more than anything is a slower pace, don't you think? We just don't have time to sit around and just think anymore.

This is a very valuable insight; I agree.

Edited March 26, 2010 by stripe

[Lovedtodeath]

 

? Er, I never said people in rural areas aren't well-educated (I also didn't say rural folks don't have morals), and neither did anyone else. I asked where I might find such a place. I was looking for ideas.

I must admit... when I saw your question I took it the wrong way. :001_huh: So Titianmom may have too. We all make mistakes.:001_smile:

[stripe]

I must admit... when I saw your question I took it the wrong way. :001_huh:

I don't really have a reason to believe rural-dwellers are more/less educated/moral than city dwellers, one way or another. What I probably question the most, however, is finding rural American towns that have rejected sugar. I tend to imagine rural Japan or Korea for that!

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't really have a reason to believe rural-dwellers are more/less educated/moral than city dwellers, one way or another. What I probably question the most, however, is finding rural American towns that have rejected sugar. I tend to imagine rural Japan or Korea for that!

I am glad that we got that all cleared up.:grouphug:

[Donna T.]

My "ideal" educated child would look like the educated Thomas Jeffersons and George Washingtons. People who started this country knew how to think and reason in their early 20's. They seemed to be able to handle large responsiblities at early ages. The stuff people read back then for general reading was so deep, we have trouble reading it today. I heard about a town in the late 1700's where they used to "draw straws" to pick the next leaders. Everyone was considered to be well educated and able to think well enough to lead well.

 

So, the question is - how do we educate our children when our standard is that high? My husband and I - though college educated never even acheived that type of education and now just don't have the energy as we plop into bed after the kids go to bed. So, how does one go about this? Do we move to the middle of nowhere away from society and only have certain books available to read:001_huh: (lol)? Can this even be done in our society anymore?

 

Beth

 

Hi! I haven't had time to read through all the responses but wanted to suggest that you read The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto if you haven't already. It won't tell you How To accomplish this for your children but it will give you plenty of things to think about as you determine your course. The important point that he makes about the men of our early Republic is that they were almost completely self-taught. At the age of 23, Washington had had only two years of formal schooling. His contemporaries berated him for not being more "bookish".

[Charles Wallace]

I wonder if we really just need to cut out the media - that would go over well:glare:. People back then, when they went to college, they were young teens, but really able to think college level work (even by our standards today). I think part of it was because middle age was around 20 years old, so you had to grow up fast and think marriage and career fairly quickly.

Beth

 

To be honest -- and this is not a judgment on what others chose to do with their families, but a description of our choice in relation to us -- we deliberately avoided Disney, Pixar, Nickelodeon, most cable television, and almost every form of media deliberately intended for children. No Dora, no Sponge Bob, no Hannah Montana.

 

It was one of the best decisions we ever made for our family. We're not particularly religious, but we detested the values advanced in those shows and distrusted also the loud, jarring, jolting, ADD-inducing nature of most of them. We couldn't stand how many of them --and yes, for convenience's sake, I'm painting with a very broad brush, for which I apologize -- glorify snottiness, disrespect to/distrust of adult authority figures, materialism, early sexuality, or just plain idiocy and ignorance.

 

We didn't cut out all media. We watched The Magic Flute, Schoolhouse Rock, A Midsummer Night's Dream and other things we felt would have a lot of cultural "bang for the buck." Again, we haven't been sorry.

 

My personal theory is this: I believe that much of the early education schools and much of the media give children is...well, pretty valueless. Too easy, too undemanding, too content-free to be of much value at all. Even the theoretically "educational" shows are "educational" in the same way that Kool-Aid is "healthy." Kool-Aid might contain a day's worth of vitamin C, but face it: it's only a superficial excuse to drink colored sugar water. Same thing with many "educational" shows: a sprinkling of Spanish does not make it worthwhile, at least in my opinion, to watch hour upon hour of Dora the Explorer.

 

Thanks for letting me rant!!:lol: