What is NOT a classical education?

[Jenny in GA]

I'm fairly new to WTM, and these boards. I like it, but I'm still wondering if classical education is "my thing" or not ... and in fact, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is.

 

Sometimes it helps, in understanding something, to say what it is not. For example, eating Twinkles and chocolate milk for breakfast every day is an example of not having a healthy diet.

 

Can anyone give me examples of what would clearly not be a classical education? The more specific, the better.

 

And then, it you could flip it around to show the "classical version" of the same subject, even better.

 

Thanks

Jenny

http://beanmommyandthethreebeans.blogspot.com/

[Jennefer@SSA]

An unsystematic approach to history would not be classical.

 

A lack of reading any of the Great Books would not be classical.

 

Those are the first two that come to mind right off the bat. Now many would disagree about how to do the above but not that they need to be done, imho. :001_smile:

[kmacnchs]

An unsystematic approach to history would not be classical. :001_smile:

 

:iagree:

 

OP: you said the more specific the better so, to expand, many children learn history working from themselves outward (K - what is a family, 1st - what is in your community, 2nd - what is in your town, 3rd & 4th - state and US history, etc.). However, a classical approach does 3 stages of 4 cycles of history (ancients in 1st, 5th, &9th for example) - this is all in the WTM book.

 

Some would say that learning Latin is a part of a Classical Education...I am curious to see what others say (since we do not nor do we plan on learning Latin - at least not first).

[8filltheheart]

Sorry......but I disagree about cyclical history as a determinant for classical education.

 

While there are numerous definitions of neo-classical philosophy, the main components of traditional classical education are logical argument and rhetorical analysis.

 

In my opinion, excerpt studies of literature and history would be examples of non-classical education. Worksheet/multiple choice education would also be examples.

 

Classical education should focus on original works and classical literature. Understanding the importance of the structure of language and using that ability to argue persuasively are fundamental. The ultimate goal of CE should be the formation of independent thinkers who are effective communicators. Those goals require dialogue, original thinking, and defending the position.

[elise1mds]

My understanding of classical education: Whether you follow a cyclical process or not, there are three stages of learning in a classical education: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Each of these stages helps the child(ren) learn the basics and then proceed to the finer points of stating an argument and being able to back it up with sound logic and facts (that have been learned in the previous stages). Tools used to reach this goal include reading lots of literature - not just excerpts but, as someone has already mentioned, the classics themselves - and creating a solid basis of thought and critical thinking. Using a cycle, as I said, is not necessarily required, but using a chronological approach to each subject is, I think, part of a classical education because you are then able to help the child understand the 'now' by understanding what has gone before. To put it another way, don't put the cart before the horse. The child then has, again, a solid basis on which to lay arguments and facts and give an educated perspective about many topics. Latin has historically been a part of a classical education because much of this way of teaching is based on the Roman ideal, and I am teaching it to my son because I believe that his future career path lies in science and he'll need to be able to understand it as much as possible, but I think as long as you are willing to help your child understand cultural diversity in the form of at least one other language, you're still following the classical ideal.

 

Again... this is all just my two cents' worth :)

[Oak Knoll Mom]

Sorry......but I disagree about cyclical history as a determinant for classical education.

:iagree: You can have a classical education without following a four year history rotation.

[brehon]

I agree with 8FilltheHeart. Jenny, I would recommend that you read various books on classical education because even the term itself has differing meanings depending on who is talking.

 

I would recommend: The Well Trained Mind as an example of a neo-classical education (more history cycle and Great Books - general summary).

 

The Latin Centered Curriculum by Andrew Campbell as an example of a more traditional classical education with its emphasis on Latin and Greek and the ancient cultures which heavily influence(d) our own. [This is obviously a very generalized synopsis of the book.]

 

Charlotte Mason's books -- and NOT someone else's interpretation of her writings. I believe her books are 5-6 volumes, although I could be mistaken.

 

Climbing Parnassus by Tracy Lee Simmons

 

Each of these resources will lead to other resources you can delve into as you will. There is a lot of homeschool curricula which advertises itself as "classical" but patently is not. I really think 8FillTheHeart hit the nail on the head in her last paragraph.

[lovemykids]

Sorry......but I disagree about cyclical history as a determinant for classical education.

 

While there are numerous definitions of neo-classical philosophy, the main components of traditional classical education are logical argument and rhetorical analysis.

 

In my opinion, excerpt studies of literature and history would be examples of non-classical education. Worksheet/multiple choice education would also be examples.

 

Classical education should focus on original works and classical literature. Understanding the importance of the structure of language and using that ability to argue persuasively are fundamental. The ultimate goal of CE should be the formation of independent thinkers who are effective communicators. Those goals require dialogue, original thinking, and defending the position.

:iagree:

[Jennefer@SSA]

I just wanted to add that I said that a systematic approach to history would be a mark of a classical education, not necessarily a cyclical one.

 

But I would love to discuss this further (with 8FillTheHeart or anyone else who would like to chime in) :001_smile: My only understanding of Classical Education is from The Well Trained Mind. I am learning more and more that SWB's take on Classical Education is just one idea about how to apply it today.

 

In the link posted above SWB says:

 

The world is full of knowledge, and finding the links between fields of study can be a mind-twisting task. A classical education meets this challenge by taking history as its organizing outline — beginning with the ancients and progressing forward to the moderns in history, science, literature, art and music.

 

and

 

The classical education is, above all, systematic — in direct contrast to the scattered, unorganized nature of so much secondary education.

 

and she does link systematic study to a cyclical one here:

 

We suggest that the twelve years of education consist of three repetitions of the same four-year pattern: Ancients, Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, and Modern Times. The child studies these four time periods at varying levels — simple for grades 1-4, more difficult in grades 5-8 (when the student begins to read original sources), and taking an even more complex approach in grades 9-12, when the student works through these time periods using original sources (from Homer to Hitler) and also has the opportunity to pursue a particular interest (music, dance, technology, medicine, biology, creative writing) in depth.

 

and here:

 

The sciences are studied in a four-year pattern that roughly corresponds to the periods of scientific discovery: biology, classification and the human body (subjects known to the ancients); earth science and basic astronomy (which flowered during the early Renaissance); chemistry (which came into its own during the early modern period); and then basic physics and computer science (very modern subjects).

 

In TWTM, history is such a huge part of the Classical Education (as I understand from my readings). Is this not so of other neo-classicists? Is this emphasis on history in general, and a cyclical approach specifically, unique to TWTM or is it seen in other literature about Classical Ed?

 

:bigear::bigear::bigear:

Edited January 31, 2010 by Jennefer@SSA

[Charles Wallace]

I'm fairly new to WTM, and these boards. I like it, but I'm still wondering if classical education is "my thing" or not ... and in fact, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is.

 

Sometimes it helps, in understanding something, to say what it is not. For example, eating Twinkles and chocolate milk for breakfast every day is an example of not having a healthy diet.

 

Can anyone give me examples of what would clearly not be a classical education? The more specific, the better.

 

And then, it you could flip it around to show the "classical version" of the same subject, even better.

 

Thanks

Jenny

http://beanmommyandthethreebeans.blogspot.com/

 

Classical Education is Not...

1. Unschooling

Unschooling is basically the antithesis of classical education.

 

2. "Unit studies"

This particuarly applies to unit studies that do not proceed according to a logical sequence. That is, a "unit" in a unit study might be about (let's say) bats, so you might study bats, read Stellaluna, build a bat house, etc., and then move on to geodes, but there would not be a logical reason WHY you moved from bats to geodes...nor why (from there) you would go on to seaweed, for example.

 

By contrast, classical education fundamentally relies on there being a coherent and logical sequence, usually chronological, driving the curriculum and its choices. Thus, a classical educator might study amoebae before bats (moving from simple to complex organisms, for example). In short, there would be a logical principle behind the sequence.

 

3. Culture (and Curriculum) of Narcissism

For example, in the public school district for which we are zoned, students learn "My Neighborhood" and "My City" and "My State" first and foremost, spending (IMHO) an inordinate amount of time on these things. In this view, one's own experience and house/neighborhood/group are the center of the universe -- other irrelevancies like Rome or Thomas Jefferson or Galileo fade into the background.

 

Classical education seeks to put things in a coherent story or order. Students learning history learn about it from the beginning -- whether that be the founding of human civilization and the start of written historical chronicles, or the beginning of human life. They learn about it in order, and THEN they are able to see how "my neighborhood" relates to the rest of the world and have these concepts in an appropriate perspective. They see how ancient Greece influenced the republic of Rome, which influenced the development of the United States, which influenced the history of one's own state (and the place of "My Neighborhood") in it. They learn the development of many cultures and thus learn where My Family or My Ethnic Group or My Race fits into the larger story that's been going on since the beginning of the universe.

 

Think about it this way: Our public school, and others like it, starts with a teeny little radius and expands that radius -- that is, from the self to the family to the neighborhood to the state. Classical education starts with a wide radius and moves to a smaller one: the world to the civilization to the country to the state to the self.

 

4. Grammar: What are that?:D

Most classical educators stress the necessity for a solid foundation in the "grammar" of a discipline. For mathematics, this would mean a solid mastery in the four fundamental operations. For English, this would mean a solid understanding of the parts of speech, the parts of a sentence, the organization of a paragraph and essay, the types of rhetorical tropes, and so on. Any system of education that condemns these skills as "just rote memorization" is not classical.

 

That's not all-inclusive, but it's a start. Hope that helps!

[Lovedtodeath]

Sorry......but I disagree about cyclical history as a determinant for classical education.

 

While there are numerous definitions of neo-classical philosophy, the main components of traditional classical education are logical argument and rhetorical analysis.

 

In my opinion, excerpt studies of literature and history would be examples of non-classical education. Worksheet/multiple choice education would also be examples.

 

Classical education should focus on original works and classical literature. Understanding the importance of the structure of language and using that ability to argue persuasively are fundamental. The ultimate goal of CE should be the formation of independent thinkers who are effective communicators. Those goals require dialogue, original thinking, and defending the position.

:iagree:I want to remember this!

[lovemykids]

In my opinion, excerpt studies of literature and history would be examples of non-classical education. Worksheet/multiple choice education would also be examples.

 

.

 

Whole books are the best; and thinking, discussing, and writing about the ideas they contain....

(although, I personally like a little “multiple choice- fill in the blank type exercise†here and there, it’s good prep for testing, IMO);)

[KrissiK]

This is a great thread and it makes me want even more to give my kids a classical education - so they learn to think. My frustration is that I had a horrible (though not uncommon) education. What I mean by that is, the schools I went to were "good" schools, but I was not challenged or even taught to value or love education. I skated through private high school, never read any of the "great" books. We were taught them, but I read enough of them to pass the test. And now, I'm 42 years old, I attempted to "re-educate" myself using "The Well-Educated Mind" and read through the first half of "Don Quixote" 4 times and then quit. That was when I was actually able to stay awake during my kids' naptime (which is the only quiet time of the day), because I would generally pick up DQ, read for 5 minutes and then fall asleep. I see the value, and especially reading the replies to this thread, what I want for my children's education, I"m just not sure I'm capable of giving it to them.

[8filltheheart]

I just wanted to add that I said that a systematic approach to history would be a mark of a classical education, not necessarily a cyclical one.

Well, I am not sure what the definition of systematic history would be, if not cyclical. :confused: We definitely do not study history chronologically. In all honesty, I personally think that presenting history chronologically gives a false sense of one event leading directly to another. In reality, there are innumerable events occurring simultaneously and it is typically the sum of numerous events that influence what occurs.

 

I have shared my view before of history being more like a jigsaw puzzle. The edge pieces are time, but the connections are not linear. The jumble of pieces that form the image are from multiple cultures, multiple POV and only through sorting through the pieces does the real picture appear.

 

Our approach to history includes going forward, sideways, and often backwards! We try to understand the different perspectives of different cultures vs. the victors write the history. ;)

 

Also, just b/c we study ancients one yr does not mean the next will be middle ages. While within a specific school yr there is a cohesive theme to what we are studying, from yr to yr the time frame may leap a millennium. Does that mean we aren't studying classically? Not by my understanding of classical education.

 

But for the record I would love to discuss this further (with 8FillTheHeart or anyone else who would like to chime in) :001_smile: My only understanding of Classical Education is from The Well Trained Mind. I am learning more and more that SWB's take on Classical Education is just one idea about how to apply it today.

 

Correct. The understanding of there being three stages, grammar, logic, and rhetoric, is based on Sayers which is another avenue of neo-classical education. Simmons's view is that Latin and Greek are the key elements.

 

The view that I encompass is that of Ignatius. St. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits, gave classical education a rebirth in the middle ages. While it did include instruction in Latin and Greek, the goal was educating the whole person: mentally, spiritually, and physically. The ultimate objective was to educate man so that they could meet the goal for which they are created--eternal salvation.

 

The proximate educational aims are, first, to develop all the powers of the body and soul. It’s the whole man that is being formed: his body, senses, memory, imagination, intellect, and will. It is developing, disciplining, and directing all the capacities of the human personality.

 

It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment. The central study of education therefore is not exclusively defined as studying Latin/Greek, cyclical history, etc in being classical, but through the subjects which form the human identity…..humanities, theology, and philosophy.

 

In TWTM, history is such a huge part of the Classical Education (as I understand from my readings). Is this not so of other neo-classicists? Is this emphasis on history in general, and a cyclical approach specifically, unique to TWTM or is it seen in other literature about Classical Ed?

 

The emphasis on cyclical history is found in many neo-classical schools, not just the WTM. It is more typical of high school studies vs. 3 rotations. The high school yrs are seen as the time to progress through history and the original classical works simultaneously.

 

 

 

 

 

HTH

Edited January 31, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Jennefer@SSA]

This is a great thread and it makes me want even more to give my kids a classical education - so they learn to think. My frustration is that I had a horrible (though not uncommon) education. What I mean by that is, the schools I went to were "good" schools, but I was not challenged or even taught to value or love education. I skated through private high school, never read any of the "great" books. We were taught them, but I read enough of them to pass the test. And now, I'm 42 years old, I attempted to "re-educate" myself using "The Well-Educated Mind" and read through the first half of "Don Quixote" 4 times and then quit. That was when I was actually able to stay awake during my kids' naptime (which is the only quiet time of the day), because I would generally pick up DQ, read for 5 minutes and then fall asleep. I see the value, and especially reading the replies to this thread, what I want for my children's education, I"m just not sure I'm capable of giving it to them.

 

:iagree: I appreciate your transparency in the bolded part. When I really allow my thoughts to go there I sometime wonder the same thing. :confused:

Edited January 31, 2010 by Jennefer@SSA

[Jennefer@SSA]

Thanks, 8FillTheHeart. I guess when I said a systematic approach to history I was thinking that many study history with a plan but it may not be in order as recommended per WTM. For example many chose to start with American History and then follow up with a year of state specific history. To me that's not cyclical but it is systematic. Systematic in that it is well thought out and planned, not just pick a topic here and there and study what seems interesting at the time per my unschooling friends.

 

I guess as I delve more and more into what I want for my boys I wonder, like Krissik did in her post above me if I am truly capable of giving my boys the kind of education I want for them. The kind of education I never had. It is so hard to play catch up. Now the basic stuff is easy. I have learned so much about geography and history and factual type information. It's the thinking that has me all muddled. I really am trying to teach myself how to think, to really engage intellectual material. It is very hard. Very hard.

 

What you said in your original post was:

 

Classical education should focus on original works and classical literature. Understanding the importance of the structure of language and using that ability to argue persuasively are fundamental. The ultimate goal of CE should be the formation of independent thinkers who are effective communicators. Those goals require dialogue, original thinking, and defending the position.

 

This has me motivated to keep on keeping on in regards to self-education. But the going is so slow and I want it yesterday. :(

 

Thanks for engaging in this dialogue with me. By the way, if I just read one other book on Classical Education to expand my horizons, what would it be in your opinion?

[Annabel Lee]

Jennifer and KrissiK, although given our own backgrounds which may pale in comparison to the education we want for our children, what we are giving them is far more than they would get in ps. Just remember that as you "keep on keeping on". Their exposure to a far greater range of knowledge will whet their appetites to learn more - if not now, once they are older (I hope!). Hopefully we are giving them the tools they need to be great self-teachers, so that someday if they want to read TWEM it won't be so hard.

[8filltheheart]

Jennifer and KrissiK, although given our own backgrounds which may pale in comparison to the education we want for our children, what we are giving them is far more than they would get in ps. Just remember that as you "keep on keeping on". Their exposure to a far greater range of knowledge will whet their appetites to learn more - if not now, once they are older (I hope!). Hopefully we are giving them the tools they need to be great self-teachers, so that someday if they want to read TWEM it won't be so hard.

 

:iagree:

 

Hey, I live in the real world with lots of kids and general chaos! While what I type might sound complicated, our reality isn't.

 

Using whole works vs textbooks gives greater exposure than anything in an institutionalized setting. Discussion is the foundation of our school. Lots and lots of talking and challenging. (and not just me!!! They constantly question my opinions!)

 

Writing one essay/paper/report per week is our 2nd foundation.....taking it apart, studying its strengths/weaknesses, and revising it. Effective written communication doesn't require quantity but quality.

 

There is no magic "curriculum." My direct involvement as their teacher vs their teaching themselves is the main determinate..

[Heather in WI]

Classical Education is Not...

1. Unschooling

{snip}

 

2. "Unit studies"

{snip}

 

3. Culture (and Curriculum) of Narcissism

{snip}

 

4. Grammar: What are that?

{snip}

 

That's not all-inclusive, but it's a start. Hope that helps!

 

:iagree:

 

Fantastic post.

 

The only thing I would add is that the study of Latin is mandatory. :-D

[Jennefer@SSA]

Jennifer and KrissiK, although given our own backgrounds which may pale in comparison to the education we want for our children, what we are giving them is far more than they would get in ps. Just remember that as you "keep on keeping on". Their exposure to a far greater range of knowledge will whet their appetites to learn more - if not now, once they are older (I hope!). Hopefully we are giving them the tools they need to be great self-teachers, so that someday if they want to read TWEM it won't be so hard.

 

Thanks for the encouragement. I thought about exactly what you said after I typed my response. My frustration is I don't want better for my kids; I want the best. Yet, thanks for your kind words.

[stripe]

Thought this article might interest you, although it is from a Charlotte Mason perspective:

 

Do Electricians Need Shakespeare? by Jennifer Spencer

 

http://childlightusa.wordpress.com/

[Jami]

I like this comparison chart:

 

http://wamemphis.com/educationalcomparison

[Sahamamama]

This is a great thread and it makes me want even more to give my kids a classical education - so they learn to think. My frustration is that I had a horrible (though not uncommon) education. What I mean by that is, the schools I went to were "good" schools, but I was not challenged or even taught to value or love education. I skated through private high school, never read any of the "great" books. We were taught them, but I read enough of them to pass the test. And now, I'm 42 years old, I attempted to "re-educate" myself using "The Well-Educated Mind" and read through the first half of "Don Quixote" 4 times and then quit. That was when I was actually able to stay awake during my kids' naptime (which is the only quiet time of the day), because I would generally pick up DQ, read for 5 minutes and then fall asleep. I see the value, and especially reading the replies to this thread, what I want for my children's education, I"m just not sure I'm capable of giving it to them.

 

Then give them what you can. You say that even the private school didn't challenge you, so if you challenge yourself now, and do your best to challenge your children as they grow, then you'll be doing better than an unchallenging private or public school. You can do this! :hurray:

[IsabelC]

You probably need to distinguish between a traditional classical education, a neo-classical education, and a WTM education (remember, as much as we love it, TWTM isn't the be-all and end-all of classical education, it's just one version!).

 

ETA - oops, somebody already said that.

[Sahamamama]

By the way, if I just read one other book on Classical Education to expand my horizons, what would it be in your opinion?

 

Norms and Nobility, by David V. Hicks.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761814671/ref=cm_rdp_product

[Sahamamama]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/our-model/

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/a-classical-approach-to-history/

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/the-joy-of-classical-education/

 

Another POV:

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Tracy-Lee-Simmons.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Spring%2008/orderingknowledge.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/July08/historynotchronological.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Spring09/teach-history-chronologically.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Winter%2009/Two-TrackHistory.html

 

And:

 

http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/index.html

 

And:

 

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/

 

And:

 

http://latincentered.com/

Edited February 1, 2010 by Sahamamama

[Mynyel]

Classical Education is Not...

1. Unschooling

Unschooling is basically the antithesis of classical education.

 

2. "Unit studies"

This particuarly applies to unit studies that do not proceed according to a logical sequence. That is, a "unit" in a unit study might be about (let's say) bats, so you might study bats, read Stellaluna, build a bat house, etc., and then move on to geodes, but there would not be a logical reason WHY you moved from bats to geodes...nor why (from there) you would go on to seaweed, for example.

 

By contrast, classical education fundamentally relies on there being a coherent and logical sequence, usually chronological, driving the curriculum and its choices. Thus, a classical educator might study amoebae before bats (moving from simple to complex organisms, for example). In short, there would be a logical principle behind the sequence.

 

3. Culture (and Curriculum) of Narcissism

For example, in the public school district for which we are zoned, students learn "My Neighborhood" and "My City" and "My State" first and foremost, spending (IMHO) an inordinate amount of time on these things. In this view, one's own experience and house/neighborhood/group are the center of the universe -- other irrelevancies like Rome or Thomas Jefferson or Galileo fade into the background.

 

Classical education seeks to put things in a coherent story or order. Students learning history learn about it from the beginning -- whether that be the founding of human civilization and the start of written historical chronicles, or the beginning of human life. They learn about it in order, and THEN they are able to see how "my neighborhood" relates to the rest of the world and have these concepts in an appropriate perspective. They see how ancient Greece influenced the republic of Rome, which influenced the development of the United States, which influenced the history of one's own state (and the place of "My Neighborhood") in it. They learn the development of many cultures and thus learn where My Family or My Ethnic Group or My Race fits into the larger story that's been going on since the beginning of the universe.

 

Think about it this way: Our public school, and others like it, starts with a teeny little radius and expands that radius -- that is, from the self to the family to the neighborhood to the state. Classical education starts with a wide radius and moves to a smaller one: the world to the civilization to the country to the state to the self.

 

4. Grammar: What are that?:D

Most classical educators stress the necessity for a solid foundation in the "grammar" of a discipline. For mathematics, this would mean a solid mastery in the four fundamental operations. For English, this would mean a solid understanding of the parts of speech, the parts of a sentence, the organization of a paragraph and essay, the types of rhetorical tropes, and so on. Any system of education that condemns these skills as "just rote memorization" is not classical.

 

That's not all-inclusive, but it's a start. Hope that helps!

 

WoW!!! Excellent, Love it!

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/our-model/

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/a-classical-approach-to-history/

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/the-joy-of-classical-education/

 

Another POV:

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Tracy-Lee-Simmons.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Spring%2008/orderingknowledge.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/July08/historynotchronological.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Spring09/teach-history-chronologically.html

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Winter%2009/Two-TrackHistory.html

 

And:

 

http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/index.html

 

And:

 

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/

 

And:

 

http://latincentered.com/

 

I am going to be up until o'dark thurty now! tyvm :tongue_smilie:

 

:grouphug::grouphug:

[angela in ohio]

Sorry......but I disagree about cyclical history as a determinant for classical education.

 

While there are numerous definitions of neo-classical philosophy, the main components of traditional classical education are logical argument and rhetorical analysis.

 

In my opinion, excerpt studies of literature and history would be examples of non-classical education. Worksheet/multiple choice education would also be examples.

 

Classical education should focus on original works and classical literature. Understanding the importance of the structure of language and using that ability to argue persuasively are fundamental. The ultimate goal of CE should be the formation of independent thinkers who are effective communicators. Those goals require dialogue, original thinking, and defending the position.

 

:iagree:

[cajun.classical]

I like this comparison chart:

 

http://wamemphis.com/educationalcomparison

 

:iagree:

[angela in ohio]

It is NOT:

 

quick

painless

easy

boring

elitist

useless

 

:001_smile:

[StephanieZ]

Watching lots of videos or TV would NOT be classical. . . whereas reading lots of quality literature WOULD be.

[Ester Maria]

Classical can refer to a method or to a content, and that's where a lot of misunderstanding lies.

 

I don't accept as "classical" a model which doesn't encompass the study of classical languages, history, literature and philosophy - for me, the content is very important in the definition.

Other people might focus on the method, and thus accept as classical anything which follows a 3-stage model. While I think it's integral part of classical education to some extent, depending on the model, I don't think that itself makes an educational model "classical".

[8filltheheart]

Classical can refer to a method or to a content, and that's where a lot of misunderstanding lies.

 

I don't accept as "classical" a model which doesn't encompass the study of classical languages, history, literature and philosophy - for me, the content is very important in the definition.

Other people might focus on the method, and thus accept as classical anything which follows a 3-stage model. While I think it's integral part of classical education to some extent, depending on the model, I don't think that itself makes an educational model "classical".

 

:iagree: It is almost like talking about 2 completely different subjects.

 

Sayers, in her Lost Tools of Learning, inserted the "ages and stages" into what was traditionally understood to be a classical education. Classifying certain grade levels as "grammar stage" or "logic stage" is not evident in traditional classical philosophy.

 

Lost Tools is available on the internet. http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar45.htm

 

Traditional classical education is based on the 7 liberal arts model:

 

The expression artes liberales, chiefly used during the Middle Ages, does not mean arts as we understand the word at this present day, but those branches of knowledge which were taught in the schools of that time. They are called liberal (Latin liber, free), because they serve the purpose of training the free man, in contrast with the artes illiberales, which are pursued for economic purposes;

 

their aim is to prepare the student not for gaining a livelihood, but for the pursuit of science in the strict sense of the term, i.e. the combination of philosophy and theology known as scholasticism. They are seven in number and may be arranged in two groups, the first embracing grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, in other words, the sciences of language, of oratory, and of logic, better known as the artes sermocinales, or language studies;

 

the second group comprises arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, i.e. the mathematico-physical disciplines, known as the artes reales, or physicae.

The first group is considered to be the elementary group, whence these branches are also called artes triviales, or trivium, i.e. a well-beaten ground like the junction of three roads, or a cross-roads open to all. Contrasted with them we find the mathematical disciplines as artes quadriviales, or quadrivium, or a road with four branches.

 

The seven liberal arts are thus the members of a system of studies which embraces language branches as the lower, the mathematical branches as the intermediate, and science properly so called as the uppermost and terminal grade. Though this system did not receive the distinct development connoted by its name until the Middle Ages

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01760a.htm

 

Note that the grouping is not by age, but more as subjects that build upon the mastery of the lower. The concepts of "ages/stages", memorizing, cyclical history, systematic studies.....all of those are interpretations of how to implement classical education but are not definitions of classical philosophy. Methodology should proceed from an understanding of the philosophy. The philosophy is not dependent upon the methodology but the reverse.

Edited February 1, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Charles Wallace]

This is a great thread and it makes me want even more to give my kids a classical education - so they learn to think. My frustration is that I had a horrible (though not uncommon) education. What I mean by that is, the schools I went to were "good" schools, but I was not challenged or even taught to value or love education. I skated through private high school, never read any of the "great" books.

 

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, part of our motivation in classically educating our child is just purely selfish -- it's to give our child the education we didn't receive!

 

I didn't realize until college (and reallllllly understood in grad school) that there are three levels of education. For the sake of brevity, I've boiled it down somewhat (well, a lot).

 

ENGLISH

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read all of The Odyssey.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read an excerpt of The Odyssey and watch the miniseries with Armand Assante.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you read Percy Jackson's The Lightning Thief.

 

HISTORY

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read primary source documents from the Civil War, including Lee's surrender and the Gettysburg Address.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read your history textbook's account of the Civil War and take a test on the end-of-the-chapter questions.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you make a poster of your favorite characters from Gone With the Wind.

 

GRAMMAR

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you learn parts of speech, parts of sentences, sentence diagramming, and compound-complex sentences.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you learn to recognize sentence errors.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, your teacher returns a paper to you with her comment that it has "alot of mistake's."

 

For the record, I received a Level 2 and realized -- very, very belatedly -- that what I had needed was truly a Level 1. You can do it!!!

[coffeefreak]

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, part of our motivation in classically educating our child is just purely selfish -- it's to give our child the education we didn't receive!

 

I didn't realize until college (and reallllllly understood in grad school) that there are three levels of education. For the sake of brevity, I've boiled it down somewhat (well, a lot).

 

ENGLISH

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read all of The Odyssey.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read an excerpt of The Odyssey and watch the miniseries with Armand Assante.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you read Percy Jackson's The Lightning Thief.

 

HISTORY

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read primary source documents from the Civil War, including Lee's surrender and the Gettysburg Address.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read your history textbook's account of the Civil War and take a test on the end-of-the-chapter questions.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you make a poster of your favorite characters from Gone With the Wind.

 

GRAMMAR

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you learn parts of speech, parts of sentences, sentence diagramming, and compound-complex sentences.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you learn to recognize sentence errors.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, your teacher returns a paper to you with her comment that it has "alot of mistake's."

 

For the record, I received a Level 2 and realized -- very, very belatedly -- that what I had needed was truly a Level 1. You can do it!!!

 

:thumbup:

 

I LOVE this! Great examples!

[Andrew Kern]

I got a bit carried away in what follows and apologize ahead of time.

 

The best way I've been able to understand classical education is to compare it with the other two options. Happily, American history can be divided into three periods, each of which is defined by the form of education they practiced.

 

First, the classical and Christian era from around 1635 to around 1800.

 

Then the traditional era from around 1800 to around 1900.

 

Then the Progressive era, which began around 1900.

 

Here's how I see the differences:

 

Progressive education is rooted in Darwinism as applied to education, especially in that progressives don't think we can know the world around us. Instead we "construct" reality in our own heads. The conventional preschool or elementary school is largely progressive, whether Christian or secular. The goal is not to know reality, but to adapt to it. It is practical, not affectionate, or philosophical and it is certainly not theological.

 

Progressives love electives and apparent choices about what and how to study. In practice, however, Progressivism is trying to recreate society on what they call scientific lines, so they need the state to impose its form of education on us. Thus, property taxes.

 

Because they are "scientific," they don't believe in the soul, reason, or will, so they use manipulative modes of instruction, usually rooted in the behavioral "sciences." They deny and therefore do not cultivate the divine image in students. Their goal is to prepare them for the industrial economy so they built schools on the factory model: 52 minutes and a bell, assembly line specialists, numerical assessment.

 

Replacing the wise man with the expert they turn the teacher into an administrator of information rather than a guide to the perplexed.

 

Virtually every single certified teacher in America learned progressive theories on the path to that certification (the rest had the sense not to pay attention, and blew off the four years partying or something). :confused: (Did i say that?)

 

The best contemporary representative of progressive education is Howard Gardner, who has some really good ideas (and some that are a distraction).

 

The second option is traditional education, which many now call classical. Traditional education became dominant in the 19th century. Whereas the progressive was secular and wanted to prepare children to work in The Economy, traditional education was Christian and largely Protestant. It's goal was to produce a good citizen, which meant one who could reason well, work hard, behave morally, and participate in the Republican form of government our Constitution had given us.

 

To these ends it taught reading, riting, and rithmetic. It also taught a WASP version of American history. By the time a typical kid graduated from 8th grade, he knew enough math to run a private business, enough history to vote intelligently, enough literature to appreciate Longfellow and Shakespeare, and enough writing to compose amazingly eloquent letters like those they found in multitudes on the bodies of Civil War soldiers.

 

The best contemporary representative of traditional education is ED Hirsch. While the goal of the Progressive Educator was to destroy the American tradition and to equip children for the new economy, the goal of traditional education was to preserve the tradition and to prepare children to become members of the American community. There were fewer electives, and teachers, being possessors of the tradition, were held in high esteem and given great authority.

 

Classical Christian education was the norm in America from the founding of Harvard and the community schools in Massachusetts in the 1600's. It was a colonial American form of classical education, however, so it was adapted to our circumstances.

 

The curriculum was amazingly simple, deep rather than wide: Latin, Greek, and math. The practical goal was to prepare people for the ministry or for leadership in the community.

 

However, it was rooted in a strong sense of community, so generally it was open to any student who showed promise. The feeling was that the community was so valuable that those who had the talent to lead should be prepared to do so.

 

The key to classical Christian education was that the world was Agrarian and even pastoral. The Colonists lived under a monarchy and while that monarchy more or less ignored them they still thought of themselves as Englishmen true to the king.

 

Probably the high point for American education came in the middle 1700's when almost every American leader received a classical education in that they studied Latin, Greek, and Math very closely. They also did some science in college, but, as I understand it, they didn't think that was good use of the earlier years because kids, in their view, weren't prepared to do it yet.

 

The reasons they studied Latin and Greek so closely were many:

 

1. The entire western heritage and, at that time, virtually every historically important document was written in Latin or Greek

2. They could read English literature on their own and it doesn't seem to have entered their minds that somebody should teach them how to do it.

3. Since they were being prepared for law, the ministry, and medicine, they were saved from having to study grammar in college instead of reading books.

 

Consider for example what has happened to the ministry in America because people aren't taught Latin and/or Greek in high school or even college. By the early 20th century, if you wanted to go into the ministry you had to study grammar in seminary. You couldn't read the Bible or works of theology in their original languages because you didn't know those languages. After a while, people going into ministry found that so frustrating that they simply dropped the Bible and theology as a focus of ministry and by the 1980's they spent most of their time studying the lastest psychological theories for Pastoral Counseling. A few specialists kept studying the Bible, but they just write to each other in their journals.

 

Do you need parallel examples for law and medicine?

 

4. They regarded Math, Latin, and Greek as unparalleled intellectual and cultural training, which was to them extraordinarily important. They thought intelligence was crucially important, not so you could outsmart your opponents in debate or business, but so your community could be led by well-trained minds (sound familiar?!).

 

5. They believed that if their heritage were lost it would be irrecoverable and that freedom was not possible if the springs of freedom were dirtied or plugged.

 

6. They liked it.

 

7. etc. etc.

 

Their goal included economic production and citizenship, but it transcended both. They believed that our greatest need was for wise and virtuous leadership and that only a community-wide commitment to cultivate the highest levels of wisdom and virtue could provide the leadership they needed. Their ideals were incredibly high, but so were their commitments. The constitution of the United States has been described by historians as the highest achievement of classical and Christian education.

 

So to them and to the whole western tradition, classical education was the cultivation of wisdom and virtue - the nourishing of the human being as human being, not as economic unit or even mere citizen. They were about cultivating the divine image.

 

Truth, goodness, and beauty were the food on which the soul fed.

 

They saw Greek, Math, and Latin as the practical tools to those ends, the vessels that held the traditions of freedom, humanity, justice, and truth. They also rightly judged that the Greeks were the best poets ever.

 

Today, what we call classical or neo-classical education makes the needed compromises to do what we can do based on the light we are given. For myself, I wish we could see a few people with the resources to make it happen, but we do get to go to the stream and dip our cups into the spring of our glorious and unparalleled heritage with gratitude.

 

So if the preceding description frustrates you or makes you want to quit, don't worry about it. Don't even care. Education is not about emotions, it's about actions. It's about teaching what you can teach when you can teach it as well as you can teach it and encouraging the many who can do it so much better than I can with a hearty congratulations free of jealousy.

 

Make it your focus, your vision, and your purpose, to cultivate wisdom and virtue in your children by nourishing their souls on the true, the good, and the beautiful. Like parched grass receiving water, they'll astonish you with the transformation that takes place. College and SAT's will take care of themselves. Seek the higher good and the lower ones will follow.

[Andrew Kern]

Charles,

 

Absolutely brilliant!!

 

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, part of our motivation in classically educating our child is just purely selfish -- it's to give our child the education we didn't receive!

 

I didn't realize until college (and reallllllly understood in grad school) that there are three levels of education. For the sake of brevity, I've boiled it down somewhat (well, a lot).

 

ENGLISH

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read all of The Odyssey.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read an excerpt of The Odyssey and watch the miniseries with Armand Assante.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you read Percy Jackson's The Lightning Thief.

 

HISTORY

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read primary source documents from the Civil War, including Lee's surrender and the Gettysburg Address.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read your history textbook's account of the Civil War and take a test on the end-of-the-chapter questions.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you make a poster of your favorite characters from Gone With the Wind.

 

GRAMMAR

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you learn parts of speech, parts of sentences, sentence diagramming, and compound-complex sentences.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you learn to recognize sentence errors.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, your teacher returns a paper to you with her comment that it has "alot of mistake's."

 

For the record, I received a Level 2 and realized -- very, very belatedly -- that what I had needed was truly a Level 1. You can do it!!!

[Andrew Kern]

This is a great thread and it makes me want even more to give my kids a classical education - so they learn to think. My frustration is that I had a horrible (though not uncommon) education. What I mean by that is, the schools I went to were "good" schools, but I was not challenged or even taught to value or love education. I skated through private high school, never read any of the "great" books. We were taught them, but I read enough of them to pass the test. And now, I'm 42 years old, I attempted to "re-educate" myself using "The Well-Educated Mind" and read through the first half of "Don Quixote" 4 times and then quit. That was when I was actually able to stay awake during my kids' naptime (which is the only quiet time of the day), because I would generally pick up DQ, read for 5 minutes and then fall asleep. I see the value, and especially reading the replies to this thread, what I want for my children's education, I"m just not sure I'm capable of giving it to them.

 

Krissi,

 

IMO you are putting too much pressure on yourself. For example, with DQ, just keep reading. Who cares if you can't stay awake or don't understand it. Heck, if you don't like it, read something else. Education is not about being something but becoming something. If you are more comfortable reading shorter or simpler stories, go to RL Stevenson or Kipling for short stories, or read some Greek plays (they take about three hours).

 

It's about acting, not feeling. Don't worry about yourself at all. Just teach the next thing, one piece at a time. You can do it because that's how much you love your children.

[Beth in SW WA]

I got a bit carried away in what follows and apologize ahead of time.

 

How dare you apologize, Andrew! Your summary makes it crystal clear for me.

 

Make it your focus, your vision, and your purpose, to cultivate wisdom and virtue in your children by nourishing their souls on the true, the good, and the beautiful. Like parched grass receiving water, they'll astonish you with the transformation that takes place. College and SAT's will take care of themselves. Seek the higher good and the lower ones will follow.

 

A million thanks for your analysis. I *needed* to hear this today. Lots to chew on.

 

Oh, how I wish I raised my older dc on classical ed from the start. So thankful to have a clearer vision and purpose the second time around.

 

Happy Sunday!

 

BTW: You'd get along well with Dr. Andrew Campbell. Are you twins separated at birth? :)

[Beth in SW WA]

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, part of our motivation in classically educating our child is just purely selfish -- it's to give our child the education we didn't receive!

 

I didn't realize until college (and reallllllly understood in grad school) that there are three levels of education. For the sake of brevity, I've boiled it down somewhat (well, a lot).

 

ENGLISH

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read all of The Odyssey.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read an excerpt of The Odyssey and watch the miniseries with Armand Assante.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you read Percy Jackson's The Lightning Thief.

 

HISTORY

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you read primary source documents from the Civil War, including Lee's surrender and the Gettysburg Address.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you read your history textbook's account of the Civil War and take a test on the end-of-the-chapter questions.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, you make a poster of your favorite characters from Gone With the Wind.

 

GRAMMAR

1. Level 1 -- The Gold Chip Level

With a Level 1 education, you learn parts of speech, parts of sentences, sentence diagramming, and compound-complex sentences.

 

2. Level 2 - The Blue Chip Level

In a Level 2 education, you learn to recognize sentence errors.

 

3. Level 3 -- The Potato Chip Level

In Level 3, your teacher returns a paper to you with her comment that it has "alot of mistake's."

 

For the record, I received a Level 2 and realized -- very, very belatedly -- that what I had needed was truly a Level 1. You can do it!!!

 

Well played, Charles. :lol:

[elegantlion]

Krissi,

 

IMO you are putting too much pressure on yourself. For example, with DQ, just keep reading. Who cares if you can't stay awake or don't understand it. Heck, if you don't like it, read something else. Education is not about being something but becoming something. If you are more comfortable reading shorter or simpler stories, go to RL Stevenson or Kipling for short stories, or read some Greek plays (they take about three hours).

 

It's about acting, not feeling. Don't worry about yourself at all. Just teach the next thing, one piece at a time. You can do it because that's how much you love your children.

 

I love the bolded quote, thank you!

[Night Elf]

This is a great thread and it makes me want even more to give my kids a classical education - so they learn to think. My frustration is that I had a horrible (though not uncommon) education. What I mean by that is, the schools I went to were "good" schools, but I was not challenged or even taught to value or love education. I skated through private high school, never read any of the "great" books. We were taught them, but I read enough of them to pass the test. And now, I'm 42 years old, I attempted to "re-educate" myself using "The Well-Educated Mind" and read through the first half of "Don Quixote" 4 times and then quit. That was when I was actually able to stay awake during my kids' naptime (which is the only quiet time of the day), because I would generally pick up DQ, read for 5 minutes and then fall asleep. I see the value, and especially reading the replies to this thread, what I want for my children's education, I"m just not sure I'm capable of giving it to them.

 

Me too, but I am learning alongside my children. I bought WEM but couldn't even read that. I was discouraged and worried I couldn't provide a good education but really, all school work still needs my interaction with the children. I'm learning with them whether I have them outlining and doing critical thinking books or using textbooks and workbooks. At least that's been my experience so far.

 

So don't stress. Take it one day at a time. I truly don't feel the need to always be ahead of my children or know more than them before they encounter it. Goodness, I'm relearning Algebra with ds13 and I'm understanding it way more than I did when I took it in high school. The fun part is that my ds13 usually understands concepts before me and he shows me how to do them. We work through the problems together. He's learning a tremendous amount because he's actively involved with the material. Very cool!

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Charles Wallace, thank you for the laugh! And thank you, Andrew Kern, for taking the time to share that post.

 

These are the conversations around my dinner table lately.

 

When I began homeschooling, I did not know how very soon my sons would begin to lead me in learning. They do this, at ages 5 to 13, by the extraordinary questions that they ask. Their questions come from their natural curiosity, our shared faith, and their neo-classical home education. I have the materials and checklists, but they have a totally unspoiled attitude toward real learning that I am trying to emulate as I teach them.

 

"A little child shall lead them..."

 

In our society, discussions about religion, politics, ethics, literature, science, and humanity are not expected around the home hearth. People have no idea what they are missing! I find those moments to be precious and priceless, and ample pay for the sacrifices of homeschooling.

 

The children in our family want learning that is solid and real. They want responsibility and purpose in their lives. They already see that a proper education is preparing them for unknown adventures.

[Hedgehogs4]

i think unschooling would definitely not be classical. imo, systematic mastery of subject matters, the inclusion of latin and later greek study, and reading the great books defines the basis of classical education.

[angela in ohio]

I love the bolded quote, thank you!

 

I agree (as if I didn't already quote Mr. Kern enough! :D)

[cjbeach]

n/a

Edited May 23, 2010 by cjbeach
repeat post

[TerriMI]

:thumbup: Fabulous thread!

[Rosie_0801]

I think a classical education is teaching what is/was going on, why it did, didn't, or is going on that way; and encourages learners to consider what they should do with the ideas and information. To get to that point requires thorough and systematic study, so anything that jumps about and leaves people missing critical parts wouldn't be classical. Obviously there is always something more to be learned about almost everything, but I think we can avoid glaring gaps so what we do know is available for use. I know a whole lot of bits of history, for example, but I never had any systematic study, so most of my historical knowledge is merely amusing but I can't use it. I don't have enough connector pieces in the historical jigsaw puzzle. The underlying discipline to the subject is important too and I think other styles of education don't focus enough on that.

 

I didn't really answer the question very well, but this was the best I could do!

 

Rosie

Edited May 24, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[ChristineC]

The view that I encompass is that of Ignatius. St. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits, gave classical education a rebirth in the middle ages. While it did include instruction in Latin and Greek, the goal was educating the whole person: mentally, spiritually, and physically. The ultimate objective was to educate man so that they could meet the goal for which they are created--eternal salvation.

 

The proximate educational aims are, first, to develop all the powers of the body and soul. It’s the whole man that is being formed: his body, senses, memory, imagination, intellect, and will. It is developing, disciplining, and directing all the capacities of the human personality.

 

It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment. The central study of education therefore is not exclusively defined as studying Latin/Greek, cyclical history, etc in being classical, but through the subjects which form the human identity…..humanities, theology, and philosophy.

 

Can you recommend a book? This is fascinating and I'd really like to take a dive into some of his writings. (FWIW, I am Catholic).

[texasmama]

I try to remember this very loose quote taken from TWTM - (I cannot even use quote marks because it is not nearly close enough to what was said...I have tired brain...) - A classical education has the end goal of producing a person who can think critically.

 

If you can learn to think critically, the world is your oyster.:001_smile: