TOG not classical....some on here says...WHY??

[Holly IN]

I have been reading some post about general sense of WTM (esp.the thread called SWB may hate me...) and educating classically. In each of these threads there a handful of people that say TOG is not classical. I firmly believe it is classical.

 

Why do some believe TOG is not classical? I find it sad that this is being said. I love WTM but I am working a full time job which means my time is limited and I chose TOG because it is classical.

 

Anyway just a bit confused by the comments in re: to TOG.

 

Holly

[Karenciavo]

Are you sure that the people who think TOG is not classical think that the WTM method is? There are the Dorothy Sayers/Neo-classicists in which group I would place both TOG and WTM and then there are the traditionalists - the LCCers/Climbing Parnassus crowd. Do you have a link?

[Janice in NJ]

I think this debate is so funny. (Not to derail your post. Really. Your questions DO deserve an answer.) But experience has taught me that answer isn't always useful.

 

After all, someone doing a "strictly classical education" is going to miss things... like how to surf the web and program a cell phone and use a search engine at a library to find the answers to their questions. I have to laugh when I think about how much data (how many printed pages of ideas/opinions/concepts) rolled across the desk of the medieval scholar vs. a student living during the time of Sayers vs. my kids today. Remarkable really. My kids need different tools than those kids. Just being a realist here - the engineer training shining through. :001_smile:

 

I listened to a lecture on mathematics and philosophy that jolted me into a completely different world regarding this whole debate too. A world were the quadrivium isn't really a set of subjects the way that I had been taught to think of the word "subjects." Instead they were further steps in the progression of gram/logic/rhetoric: each one moving in the direction of training the mind just as g/l/r does.

 

I haven't heard anyone talking about that. And it rocked my world! :001_smile:

 

So I would seek for definitions first - certainly before you wonder if your educating your kids "properly." :001_smile: I'm sorry that I don't have all of the answers for you. I personally lost interest in figuring out what everyone means by the word "classical." Too much data. Too many arguments. I've just found that those answers take a long time to find. We've needed to just do some kind of school while I suss out those answers for me and mine. So I started just reading and exploring subjects that I knew little to nothing about. It was a lot better use of my time. My methods of education grew as my knowledge base grew. Things started happening instead of me spending my time running around in circles trying to pick a path.

 

I care little about what others think regarding their definitions now. Too many other interesting things to think about. Topics with broader horizons. :001_smile:

 

It's just a thought.

I truly do hope that you find your answers! :001_smile:

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[forty-two]

After all, someone doing a "strictly classical education" is going to miss things... like how to surf the web and program a cell phone and use a search engine at a library to find the answers to their questions.

Unless the "strictly classical education" is occurring in a bubble or a time warp, I think there is no danger that a person so educated will somehow remain entirely ignorant of such vital 21st century skills :lol:. Things *can* be learned outside of formal school hours ;) - even through <gasp> everyday life :D.

 

I have to laugh when I think about how much data (how many printed pages of ideas/opinions/concepts) rolled across the desk of the medieval scholar vs. a student living during the time of Sayers vs. my kids today. Remarkable really. My kids need different tools than those kids. Just being a realist here - the engineer training shining through. :001_smile:

And I laugh at the thought that the differences are anything more than a matter of degree ;). Sure, we might have larger volumes of information to sift through now, but we still need the same mental training, the same habits of thinking that educated people have always needed, in order to make sense of it all.

 

I listened to a lecture on mathematics and philosophy that jolted me into a completely different world regarding this whole debate too. A world were the quadrivium isn't really a set of subjects the way that I had been taught to think of the word "subjects." Instead they were further steps in the progression of gram/logic/rhetoric: each one moving in the direction of training the mind just as g/l/r does.

 

I haven't heard anyone talking about that. And it rocked my world! :001_smile:

 

I know that CLAA treats the quadrivium that way. And math guru Adrian always talked about philosophy and math being sister disciplines. They are my two big math inspirations - I'd love to hear more about that lecture. :bigear:

[Colleen in NS]

So I would seek for definitions first - ...I personally lost interest in figuring out what everyone means by the word "classical." Too much data. Too many arguments. I've just found that those answers take a long time to find. We've needed to just do some kind of school while I suss out those answers for me and mine.

 

Same here. It's overwhelming. And I do think TOG is one way of educating well, classically/neo-classically/whatever-classically.

 

Unless the "strictly classical education" is occurring in a bubble or a time warp, I think there is no danger that a person so educated will somehow remain entirely ignorant of such vital 21st century skills :lol:. Things *can* be learned outside of formal school hours ;) - even through <gasp> everyday life :D.

 

They can, yes, but I think I get Janice's gist. Because I am trying hard to give my kids my own interpretation of classical/neo/whatever education, I get very caught up in trying to figure out how to do and what to do. Then I go through a panic of "OH MY, my kids don't know how to bake yet! WHY haven't I taught them how to search for their own "history-spine" related books yet on the library website??" It's because every year, something new crashes in on me that *I've* never learned before, and my energy goes to that. Or my energy goes to figuring out how a kid who is one year older than last year thinks and operates and what he/she needs. And then I have to reel myself back in, figure out how to make my academic teaching/requirements more efficient, so I can clear out the time to teach them some other life skills.

[forty-two]

They can, yes, but I think I get Janice's gist. Because I am trying hard to give my kids my own interpretation of classical/neo/whatever education, I get very caught up in trying to figure out how to do and what to do. Then I go through a panic of "OH MY, my kids don't know how to bake yet! WHY haven't I taught them how to search for their own "history-spine" related books yet on the library website??" It's because every year, something new crashes in on me that *I've* never learned before, and my energy goes to that. Or my energy goes to figuring out how a kid who is one year older than last year thinks and operates and what he/she needs. And then I have to reel myself back in, figure out how to make my academic teaching/requirements more efficient, so I can clear out the time to teach them some other life skills.

Honestly, what I really found funny was just the particular examples she used. Surfing the web, programming cell phones - they are so strikingly pervasive that you'd have to actively work - hard! - to ensure your kid *avoided* learning those skills. As well, her stated point was "things not taught in traditional classical ed", and afiak, those things aren't something that *any* classical educator - neo or traditional - spends actual school time on. Better examples would have been English lit, history - especially non-western civ, or science - all things that traditional classical ed *doesn't* cover nearly as much as neo-classical ed does, and things that might not necessarily be picked up in everyday life without deliberately structuring one's family life to facilitate it.

 

But *your* point - that we can get so caught up in teaching academic skills that we neglect to teach equally important life skills - particularly when we end up just doing them ourselves b/c it is easier, figuring we'll teach our kids "later" - is a good one. I know that I have to struggle with teaching my dc to pick up - it is *much* easier to just do it myself than to supervise (wrangle!) them doing it. But it will bite me in the long run if I ignore it now.

[Janice in NJ]

Unless the "strictly classical education" is occurring in a bubble or a time warp, I think there is no danger that a person so educated will somehow remain entirely ignorant of such vital 21st century skills :lol:. Things *can* be learned outside of formal school hours ;) - even through <gasp> everyday life :D.

 

My point exactly! (It seems that you and I agree completely here.) Defining terms is so important! What is meant by "strict?" What is meant by classical? For example, one of the sets of lectures on the list for my 11th grader this year is on Dark Matter. But titles are thrusting themselves into cue before I want him to view that set - some items on relativity etc. Where does that fit in Dorothy's scheme? or a LCC scheme? Answers to that question will be as numerous as the number of souls cued. In the end, it doesn't matter which model I follow. We're still going to work through the lectures. ;)

 

And I laugh at the thought that the differences are anything more than a matter of degree ;). Sure, we might have larger volumes of information to sift through now, but we still need the same mental training, the same habits of thinking that educated people have always needed, in order to make sense of it all.

 

I agree. Same training. But now we possess the old tools and wildly different new tools to use to accomplish that. Some are inferior. Some are vastly superior. Surely a student can read about the solar system. Beautiful language. Immersion in compelling prose. Yes! But nothing beats a lecture on DVD. Picture-n-1000 words. Saves a ton of time. Leaves more time to build those skills with other content. And it inspires the student to move in the direction of doing that on his own. Making the simple complex through simile, metaphor, and the analogy.

 

 

 

I know that CLAA treats the quadrivium that way. And math guru Adrian always talked about philosophy and math being sister disciplines. They are my two big math inspirations - I'd love to hear more about that lecture. :bigear:

Teaching Company Lecture set on philosophy and mathematics - Judith Grabner. It was mentioned almost in passing. But then I started reading about what she said. Great stuff!

 

I think we agree. One must define their terms in order to have these discussions. I've found that once I take the time to completely understand the other person in the conversation, we agree on possible methods. We may not agree on the best method - which I usually attribute to a difference in life experience and resources. But the list of ways to achieve the end is almost always the same. :001_smile:

 

As usual - I'm running so I don't really have the time to explain myself well. I hope that the scattered ideas make sense.

 

I don't wish to offend. Really. But my point was that while it's important in the beginning to have an educational "model" to follow, I've found that it wasn't nearly as important as I thought it was. I spent far too much time in the beginning honing my educational philosophy - and wondering if I was wandering from some certain path. Worth considering 2-3 times a year. Anything else was overkill. The most valuable time I have spent has been reading and studying content. Really. My educational lens was fine. I needed to practice using it. Practice using the lens hones it. Fiddling with it without looking through it was primarily an exercise in frustration.

 

A ton of things in life - like programming cell phones and surfing the web - are easily done. It's not worth discussing how to do it. Once I've learned how to do it it, I might reflect back and offer advice on how others should tackle it. But in the end it won't really matter if they arrive there via a different path. Either way we both have the ability to waste scads of time chatting, texting, and surfing. :D

 

Gotta dash!

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

Edited February 8, 2010 by Janice in NJ

[Rhondabee]

I think this debate is so funny. (Not to derail your post. Really. Your questions DO deserve an answer.) But experience has taught me that answer isn't always useful.

 

...

 

I care little about what others think regarding their definitions now. Too many other interesting things to think about. Topics with broader horizons. :001_smile:

 

It's just a thought.

I truly do hope that you find your answers! :001_smile:

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

 

Thank you, Janice!!!! (For the whole post)

 

I think I know the post that started this thread (and, actually, I am embarrassed to say I participated in that posting not realizing it resurrected a really old thread). Here is SWB's response to the original post. But, I especially like this:

 

I've been saying for year now that arguing about which model is "more" or "less" classical is totally pointless. You should be thinking: Which model will meet my goals for my family, and within my family, for each individual child?

 

Which brings me to the REAL value, for me, of (neo)classical education. IT TELLS YOU WHERE YOU'RE GOING. The goal of a classical education is this: at the end of the twelve (or however many) years you educate, the child can gather information, evaluate it, and express an opinion about it. There are many paths to that goal.

 

And I'll even go a bit farther far to say, though it may be harder to do, I bet any very determined teacher could meet this goal even using basic textbooks and a library. And without teacher/student interaction, even the booklists in WTM would be as lifeless as any other curriculum done on one's own. What makes that interaction so very hard, though, is when the teacher is forced to learn and teach at the same time!!!!!! (Especially when you're doing two or three levels of kids - God bless all the moms-of-many who somehow find the time to teach and cook and clean and then come here to share!!! And, I can't *imagine* trying to work and homeschool at the same time!) I say use whatever it takes to make those interactions happen - whether that's "classical" (by anyone's definition) or straight BJU/Abeka/Whatever or something somewhere in between. Use it proudly and enjoy your children.

 

(You said all that much more eloquently than I did!)

Edited February 8, 2010 by Rhondabee

[Karenciavo]

I'm a Draconian homeschooler, is that classical? :D

[Jami]

I'm a Draconian homeschooler, is that classical? :D

 

 

Well, Draco was an ancient Greek. So I'll say, "yes!".

[Janice in NJ]

Rhondabee,

 

I don't think I even saw that other thread. But it looks like I agree with a lot of the folks. :001_smile: My comments were really directed toward the OP. I wanted to encourage her to feel free to explore education apart from labels. (At least that's what I was leaning towards.:001_smile:) I've grown so much in the doing. Time spent wondering what to do or trying to figure out how to explain what I am doing doesn't really move me forward very much. It just helps me categorize and communicate. That's worth something. But not too much when it comes to meeting goals.

 

It reminds me of the Charlie Brown Christmas movie - the scene where CB visits Lucy's Help stand in the snow to try understand his feelings toward Christmas. Lucy is determined to label his fears. "I think that we should pinpoint your fears. If we can find what you're afraid of, we can label it." ... as if that will help. Lucy proudly monologues her data. Eventually, they determine that CB is afraid of everything. ;)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CVSpx2d8dg&feature=related

(About 4:30 into the clip.)

 

In the following clip Lucy dispenses her prescription. "You need involvement. You need to get involved in some Christmas project."

Hmmm.... a prescription without a labeled diagnosis. Wise. :001_smile:

 

I think that loose labels can be very helpful. But past that, it has just been a time waster for me.

 

Oh - and I think that I owe you a pm, Rhonda. I was going to look through the text and formulate something wise to say about modes.... and then I forgot. sorry. BUT how is your little man doing? I hope that he is recovering well!

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Rhondabee]

Oh, he is in Heaven - no school, mom waiting on him hand-and-foot while he plays video games, Hydrocodone. Can life *get* any better? LOL

 

(In reality, he doesn't really like the hydrocodone - makes him feel "funny". Think maybe *I'll* sneak one tonight and see if I can finally get rid of this headache!!!)

 

Hey, anytime about the modes - no rush! I've got my plan for this year, and even though I think I could make it better, it's planned and I don't have the whatever-it-is I need to tweak it this time. It will be a foundation to build on a bit more next year, you know?

 

I'm sorry - I didn't mean to tread on your toes with my post above. I completely agree with you, and you have encouraged me toward that end more than once in the past. So much better to make the most of what's working, than to always be looking out for the "better" thing.