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

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I haven't been on the board for a long while, but I came here specifically to ask the same question that the OP posted. Amazing to find the question already in debate! I've missed you all. :001_smile:

 

I recently read a children's book about Abe Lincoln (Abe's Fish). The book itself was ok, but there were lots of nice endnotes that I enjoyed much more. One note mentioned that Lincoln only had about one year of formal education. I was really struck by this. Since then, I've been pondering on this same question: what made this man? His speeches are full of complex sentences with incredible vocabulary. And of course they are about big ideas.

 

I've also been reading the autobiographies of Therese of Lisieux and Teresa of Avila, great women in the Catholic tradition. Both of them, too, write with beauty and complexity. While both had some education, certainly neither would have been considered "highly educated"--Teresa of Avila was a woman in the 1500's for crying out loud! C.S. Lewis is another that has stirred my thinking along this line. At a very young age he was reading amazingly difficult literature...at least what I consider amazingly difficult. Helen Keller is yet another. She began her learning late, and was astoundingly articulate and well-read. Even Laura Ingalls Wilder, the more humble example, wrote in a way that far exceeds her educational background.

 

Maybe in each instance these people were just brilliant exceptions to the norm. I don't know. But each of them, at different times, have caused me to marvel at their abilities and mourn my own (lack of) education. I'm college educated, but I struggle to read and understand things, I struggle to think and reason clearly. I desire so much more for my children, and yet feel inadequate to give them much more than my own type of education--despite my best intentions.

 

I'd like to say that our culture is a large part of the difficulty. Our way of speaking, our reading material, and of course our media are predominately lower-level, or "dumbed down". But Lincoln grew up with hillbilly-speak and uneducated parents.

 

A Thomas Jefferson Education speaks of our lack of a "national book." I do think that argument makes a lot of sense. Being ignorant of Scripture, ignorant of Homer, leaves the mind darkened to so many allusions. But if that's the explanation for our problems and the solution to them, then it seems like we have a hopeless case!

 

The other thing that I've been thinking a lot about, which at least to me ties directly into this, is our lack of political leadership--generally speaking, not pointing at any particular individual. I think our nation is craving true leaders, virtuous people, people with integrity who stand for ideals. While education alone can not make this happen, it certainly seems true that our current educational system, standards and culture have done nothing to create, develop, or encourage this type of individual. I'd like to read more about Dewey's educational philosophies; based on what little I know, it seems that they have far exceeded anyone's expectations in achieving the ends he desired.

 

Mine is just one ramble among many in this thread. I've appreciated them all. It's good to know I'm not the only one wondering and looking for answers.

[Charles Wallace]

The difference, I think, comes from a society that didn't have television (although they did find ways to waste time, even then), and was extremely literate, when folks were literate at all. (You read Shakespeare, Euclid, etc. once you learned to read.)

 

I think that the people who advocate learning Latin and Greek are definitely following a part of what was considered important, "back then", but the thing that I tend to focus on is the reading of classics. Books of value and meaning that have stood the test of time, and have informed minds for centuries.

 

Big ideas. That's what I think makes for a "classical" education, which is what I think we're talking about, to an extent.

 

(Please don't take this as an argument against the suggestion to read ATJE; I think it's got some good points, and there are things I do that look similar to some of their suggestions. I just think that with regards to the OP's question about how education was directed back then, ATJE is somewhat misleading.)

 

 

I agree. The problem is that much of the books written for children and young adults are...well, garbage. Most of them -- and by "them," I mean "young adult fiction" -- are written on the fourth or fifth grade level (I'm looking right at you, Twilight and Lightning Thief!) with poor, simplistic sentence structure and puerile vocabulary.

 

I think it's pretty simple: garbage in, garbage out. There's a reason many of my high school students find high school level writing and reading to be challenging: they're not used to reading over the fourth or fifth grade level, much less encountering ideas and philosophies that challenge their assumptions and teach them to think and reason, weighing evidence wisely and understanding the difference between a good argument and a bad one.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

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.

 

Nice post! I absolutely agree. These are admirable things you've done with your family.

 

And I like your username, too. :) I always thought I was Meg.

[bethben]

We have gotten rid of most TV just due to the fact that we live in a digital tv dead zone and the old rabbit ears only get so much reception. Sure we could get cable, but have purposely chosen to not have so many programs. So, they know about spongebob and others only based on what other kids have told them or the occassional tv program at someone else's house (which is few and far between now since Legos have entered the picture).

 

I am finding that my children are starting to use bigger words than their peers - every once in a while, my son will say something to his ps friend and I'm wondering if his friend wonders why he uses such big words in his speech. We are doing TOG which is forcing him to read books other than junk food books. I am considering how to make our homeschool more rigorous without burning out my kiddos - I want them to want to learn, but it seems like such a tiresome uphill battle in this culture for their mind. Sure, I want them to be responsible citizens and workers, but for the sake of their Lord, not for the sake of the state.

 

Beth

[Ester Maria]

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:

Agreed, and here's my own rant and a couple of observations with regards to this.

 

When you're watching a content which purposely creates tensions, physical tensions that is - most of the effects-based films are in that group - something interesting happens to your body. Your body accumulates energy, preparing itself to "react" - but, of course, even despite the suspension of disbelief, you are aware of the fact that what you're consuming is not real, and thus the physical reaction doesn't happen and stays inside of your body. Do it often and try to imagine visually what's the result: you have tons of chunks of "unreacted reactions" in your body, like chunks of blocked energy.

Add to it the fact that today's generation isn't as much physically active, for that energy to dissolve through sports or hard labor. Add to it processed foods with minimal nutritional value. What you get as a result is your typical 21st century child, labeled with various "ADHD"s (I'm NOT claiming that ADHD doesn't exist as a possible real disorder or that all cases of ADHD are invented diseases, but, being married to a pharmacist, we both claim that over half kids prescribed with various disorders of the kind not only do not need medications, but are not even ill on a fundamental level, it's just a result of malnutrition, sedentary lifestyle and media poisoning).

 

While I'm not romanticizing the past educational systems, and while I absolutely OPPOSE the kind of education which is conducted regardless of the context one lives in (I don't think classical education is incompatible with that, as a matter of fact, in our good days I'd say I'm pretty successful in combining what I really consider a good, old fashioned education, i.e. a base to build on, with having modern kids who can function in the context of their time and age, which includes basic technological and media literacy as well), I think there's a LOT of truth in the post I quoted above. And while not everyone will choose to completely get rid of the media junk and mental and emotional dumbing down it cases, I think it's one of the better advices you can give to somebody who desires to educate their children more traditionally.

 

Another thing I think crucial is the structure. I realize that not everyone will agree with me on this one, and that's okay, but I'll state that I oppose various "child led" philosophies, unschooling, the types of education which generally indulge the child rather than gently force a structure and then allow some freedom within the structure. I think much of the failure of educational system was losing the structure, making schools to funcion as an offer of "courses" rather than studying within a specific structure. That's also the key difference between the American and the European educational systems (even though the former has been greatly influencing the latter in the past decades and, supririsingly, that's when the quality went down in Europe as well) - the former seeks to produce "excerpts" in a limited number of areas, but loses the structure, while the latter traditionally loves to go broad and have the structure and the context, but often at cost of graduating as a "jack of all trades, master of none" (which is what, essentially, university should serve - that should be the point of specializing, not before).

 

I also find particularly harmful the idea that schooling should be primarily a fun activity. The whole notion of schools becoming daycares for young adults rather than serious academic institutions is quite inappropriate. It also leads to greater emotional immaturity, and this generation already has a problem with that because of the media - they don't need more dumbing down at school, yet, unfortunately, they receive it.

I'm not saying schooling should be a torture - on the contrary; but I don't indulge the kids if they don't have fun. On the other hand, I can, and have been known to, put something on hold if they can't grasp it cognitively, or emotionally, if it's an experience too distant for them to deal with it now, but usually that's not the case.

 

As I'm writing this my 13 y.o. is sighing over Philo of Alexandria two meters away from me - she thought she understood it until I told her to logically exapand the argument visually on the paper (which claims comes from which claim, and what are they based on), and track down Judaic and Greek ideas in it (we're doing this as a sort of introduction to the concept of Jewish philosophy and, on the whole, the concept of philosophy within a religious system). Easy? Not really, even though the text is not dense, AND she has comments on it. And we're talking about a relatively easy text and a (not relatively :D) gifted child. I know she's struggling with it, and guess what? It's completely fine with me that she's struggling (as a matter of fact, she'll struggle way much more next year when I assign parts from Rambam or Kant, and I'm already looking forward to it :D). That's what schooling should be about. I can almost see her mind working on it, and I love what I see. It's completely okay with me that she's having a hard time learning something. It's completely okay with me that she snapped over Cicero the other day. Again. And that's she's been struggling with his texts most of this year (with occasional breaks for other stuff). And I'll still have her finish what I planned for her. If she gets Latin syntax done on that, there's no way she'll ever have problems with Latin syntax in the future (she might not notice it yet, but I do - ever since she's been in love-hate relationship with Cicero, her Latin is a few levels above what it used to be). It's also completely okay with me that she's having a hard time with Hebrew grammar, when I force her to think analytically about the concepts she knows intuitively. And it's perfectly fine that sometimes mathematical proofs or valences in chemistry take some time and pondering, and perhaps even frustration (all of that is normal with kids!) before they make sense, it doesn't mean I have to change the textbook, method or level, if the amount of struggling she has is normal. Basically, it's COMPLETELY OKAY THAT IT'S NOT EASY, and that's what modern schools need to re-learn urgently. Really. I'm not ruining her mentally or anything. As a matter of fact, I'd more likely be ruining her if I didn't do things the way I do, if I jumped on every fit she has to change whatever she wants it to be changed so she can have more fun. If she has fun doing something it's great, but I'd much more prefer her to learn when we "do school" - my priorities are clear. How much fun she'll have is up to her, and I'm not cutting on things if she's not having fun. It might seem I'm overemphasizing that, but from what I see around me with homeschool moms, a lot of them do the mistake of thinking it should always be about fun and exploration. Maybe when kids are really small, but if you want meaningful humanities education, at some point you'll just have to take a habit of sitting a few long hours with the same plain colorless text with no fun distractions and thinking about the ideas presented there, outlining them, seeing logical connections between the arguments (or lack thereof) and then discussing it. It's not always fun, but it's very useful and mentally healthy.

 

/rant

[Charles Wallace]

Agreed, and here's my own rant and a couple of observations with regards to this.

 

When you're watching a content which purposely creates tensions, physical tensions that is - most of the effects-based films are in that group - something interesting happens to your body. Your body accumulates energy, preparing itself to "react" - but, of course, even despite the suspension of disbelief, you are aware of the fact that what you're consuming is not real, and thus the physical reaction doesn't happen and stays inside of your body. Do it often and try to imagine visually what's the result: you have tons of chunks of "unreacted reactions" in your body, like chunks of blocked energy.

 

 

 

Interesting. Simultaneously over- and understimulated.

 

 

Another thing I think crucial is the structure. I realize that not everyone will agree with me on this one, and that's okay, but I'll state that I oppose various "child led" philosophies, unschooling, the types of education which generally indulge the child rather than gently force a structure and then allow some freedom within the structure. I think much of the failure of educational system was losing the structure, making schools to funcion as an offer of "courses" rather than studying within a specific structure.

 

 

 

Yes -- I think unschooling can work for some people (I'm thinking highly driven, profoundly gifted students for whom basically unschooling is not just the best but basically the only approach that would work), but for most kids, I remain very skeptical about its value and fear that unschoolers may be wasting a great deal of time. It's theirs to waste, of course, but as for me, I trust that being forty zillion years old or so has given me a teeny little bit of insight into what skills, ideas, concepts, texts, or areas of study are more worthwhile than others. And yeah, am I imposing my own wishes and values? Oh, sure -- you do no matter what path you take.

 

. Basically, it's COMPLETELY OKAY THAT IT'S NOT EASY, and that's what modern schools need to re-learn urgently.

 

 

YES. I recently had my freshmen -- also 13 -- doing something far less difficult than an assignment on Philo of Alexandria: I was having them write the Classic Five-Paragraph Essay, mostly because their writing skills are very, very poor and they absolutely need some kind of "template" structure as a foundation from which they can later improvise. While editing papers according to my directions, which are fairly exacting, one of the students turned to me and said, "This is HARD!"

 

Yep. Except it's not. It's hard for that student, but the reason it's hard is because (or so I assume), no one before me has ever done the following:

 

* Made them write in grammatically correct English

* Made them write more than one paragraph on any given subject

* Made them write according to a clear structure.

 

 

By the way, it sounds like I'd love the Philo assignment. Was that yours, or did you get it from a textbook?

 

/rant

[In2why]

I confess I haven't read all 17 pages yet. But a few thoughts as I read.....

 

I think feeling useful and needed is more important that just being given jobs to do to keep busy. In the 1700's and until recently every child contributed to the family in a meaningful way. If a job didn't get done it could mean not eating or something equally important to the family's survival. Most of us no longer have that type of situation.

For young males I am a HUGE proponent of scouts. They learn useful life skills which can mean the difference between comfort and logical consequences.

As for adult children leaving home as a sign of maturity, I am not so sure. Most families had lots of land and the adult children settled on family land and worked in family created industry. Children lived at home until they married. Another dynamic that is hard to recreate.

Sadly not all of our children are going to be the Jeffersons, Adams, or Washington's. Some of them will carry their bags. Just like there were men of thier times then, there will be men and women of the times now.

[mcconnellboys]

This is the very sort of "meaningful work" that I think we need to try to find for all kids to do as they grow up. When I think back about working in my family's business, it was -real-. It was important. It was doing the same sorts of things adults do every day, with the same sorts of risks. I think that's what helps the mind to be able to mature and develop as it should. REAL work.

 

If people in another era were more mature in their thinking than similarly aged people of today, I tend to think it's because they were much more immersed - and from an earlier age - in real and meaningful "work" (though it can certainly be fun, like sailing, LOL!) from an early age.

[mcconnellboys]

Oops, it finally reappeared, but I think I might have done better the second time around, so I'll delete this one.....

Edited March 28, 2010 by mcconnellboys

[Merry]

working on Philo of Alexandria or Cicero absolutely sounds like the kind of work that the young people can take pride in once they are finished with it. The mental labor is just as real as physical labor but in a different way. It's not as well rewarded though in America by our schools as participating in sports or fitting in cliques.

[mcconnellboys]

Well, my last post disappeared, so I guess I'll try again....

 

Yes, I think that getting involved in meaningful projects, hobbies, etc. is a terrific way to do "real" sorts of work. Growing up in a rural area, I think 4-H (at times) and things like FFA, and FHA were very good for many of the teens of my era.

 

I think that the movement in our society today to get folks to do volunteer work, particularly for young people, can also be beneficial in this way. However, as with my older son's school, if it is not directed properly, it can also just be another way to teach kids that nothing's really important, that most things are just a make-work, waste of time, etc. If kids get involved in a 4-H, Scout, or any type of group where this sort of thing is happening, then I think they need to be pulled quickly and the problems need to be explained to them.

 

Having grown up on a farm, the amount of input we got just from daily living regarding the environment, respect for life, weather conditions, info on local flora and fauna, etc. was just tremendous. It's little wonder to me that so many city kids (or nearly any plugged-in kid of today) has no basis for any common sense regarding these things. I could understand when we were in the Rocky Mountains how so many were struck by ligthning every year in spite of all the ranger admonitions and many, many posted warning signs. I understand why nearly every time we go hiking/camping the rangers are out looking for folks who are lost.

 

I think growing up without any sort of input whatsoever in whole areas of importance might create something like a blind spot, at least for quite a few people. I tend to think that's the process I'm seeing at work today with people seemingly being unable to manage their money/debt. They seem to think that nearly any situation in life is a simulation and in case of difficulty, they can just hit re-set. If they were not brought up with someone talking to them about money or other topics, modeling appropriate behaviour in particular situations, etc., then how can they really be expected to know any better?

 

I think no matter what our learning styles are, we human beings nearly all learn by doing, by living out particular situations and the realities of those. I just don't think simulations can provide a substitute for that.....

 

In that regard, as others have said, I think it would not be a bad idea at all to post a list of broad yearly goals for our children and look for ways to accomplish those. In addition to just checking off the things we plan for, I think it might be a good idea to also plug in other opportunities that come along during the year that also fulfill or surpass those goals (because for me, those are often the best things!). Looking back at those sorts of things might help us to brainstorm/develop better and better models for education through time.....

[Sahamamama]

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.

 

In Charles City, Virginia, somewhere off of The Glebe Lane, I think you might find a few of these people in that kind of place. I'm not sure about the food, though, I think they like to bake. :D

[Josephine]

Agreed, and here's my own rant and a couple of observations with regards to this.

...

I also find particularly harmful the idea that schooling should be primarily a fun activity. The whole notion of schools becoming daycares for young adults rather than serious academic institutions is quite inappropriate. It also leads to greater emotional immaturity, and this generation already has a problem with that because of the media - they don't need more dumbing down at school, yet, unfortunately, they receive it.

I'm not saying schooling should be a torture - on the contrary; but I don't indulge the kids if they don't have fun. On the other hand, I can, and have been known to, put something on hold if they can't grasp it cognitively, or emotionally, if it's an experience too distant for them to deal with it now, but usually that's not the case.

.......

 

/rant

 

 

I really needed this reply. I have been reading more about unschooling lately and can agree with some aspects of it but in all things I think a balance needs to be achieved. I do want my kids to have some freedom in their education to pursue their own interests while still having a framework that ensures they are well-rounded.

 

Work is a good thing, but our society today has the opposite view. Here is a verse that I came across that helped me to see that.

 

Proverbs 14

23In all labor there is profit,

But mere talk leads only to poverty.

 

Anything worth having requires work. My kids definitely need to learn this. In fact, I'm sure I could work on knowing this lesson better. Although as mentioned before, I don't think work = torture but I guess my kids probably have a different definition for that than I do. ;)

 

Josephine

[kalanamak]

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.

 

 

Is it possible that their stance seems so high because education like this was heaped upon those with very strong inborn abilities? I recall reading once that Voltaire's schooling was partially paid for in the will of a well known and now old prostitute, who knew his father, and recognized someone worthy of a scholarship.

 

I meet the occasional "young person" who blows me out of the water with their smarts and sense. Cream, as they say, rises to the top....

[stripe]

In Charles City, Virginia, somewhere off of The Glebe Lane, I think you might find a few of these people in that kind of place. I'm not sure about the food, though, I think they like to bake. :D

See, that's my worry. The pies will get you every time.

[Tress]

Fascinating thread!

 

And Charles Wallace and Ester Maria...please continue ranting, I'm :bigear: and totally :iagree:!!!!!!!