Is a book-based curriculum wrong for the 21st century?

[MamaBearTeacher]

I discovered WTM, Sonlight and Ambleside Online last year and fell in love with them. :001_smile: The way I teach my kids is basically by reading to them. We read several hours a day, they love it and they learn tons. They read high quality books, and miles above the reading done in the school system. I thought I was doing a great job homeschooling them and that they would end up with a wonderful education. Then I watched PBS Frontline's Digital Nation:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/

 

And now I am completely second-guessing myself! :confused: The thing that bothered me most about the show was when someone said that in the future people will not need to remember information as much but rather problem solve, create, build and multitask.

 

It seemed that all the people who were interviewed who believed that the ability for sustained learning is important were of the older generation who will be retired by the time my children enter the workforce. If my children are able to read 300-page novels but the vast majority of their generation cannot is it really useful? If most of their generation writes in paragraphs rather than essay-form will their way of writing be considered old-fashioned and dated? Is it like someone today speaking or writing like Shakespeare? It might be more beautiful but you wouldn't really fit in.

 

The world has changed so much in the past decade. Really it has! Am I acknowledging that when I choose to focus on books or am I clinging to old ways that will become obsolete? If all their peers grow up multitasking all the time will they be at a disadvantage if their education has focused on sustained learning? Will they be able to relate to their peers?

 

I realize that this is a Classical education board and that most of you read books a great deal like us but I am hoping to spark a bit of debate and hear lots of opinions and ideas on this so I can develop the best way of teaching my children.

[KristenS]

Multi-tasking is overrated. There are even articles and studies that show productivity goes down.

 

That said, I like multi-tasking with a book and a chore. :)

 

I want my kids to love reading. I want them to appreciate books. The info in my books is not going to change. The info on Wikipedia, much as I like it, might be different from one day to the next.

 

Besides, if they *learn* the knowledge, it's theirs to keep. If they always have to look stuff up, they have to always trust someone else's knowledge. Just think how well that serves us in politics and voting. (rolls eyes)

[Rosie_0801]

I think that stuff is a lot of honk. Look at job adverts.

 

"Strong communication skills required."

"Strong written skills required."

 

We've been job searching for months, and I hesitated in putting some of those jobs on hubby's shortlist because his skills are not strong. I was talking to a friend and she laughed. "Apply anyway," she said. "No one has strong skills." She's right, it seems. Hubby got a bit of temp work the other week, and one of his assignments was to proof read a computer program training manual. His English skills are pretty ordinary, but he came home telling me that the chap who wrote the manual didn't even know the difference between a common and a proper noun, so hadn't capitalised properly. That guy has crappy grammar, but he wanted it corrected, didn't he?

 

So, if your kids are the only ones applying for jobs that actually do have strong English skills, they're going to look pretty darn good compared to everyone else. People aren't using these skills because they are no longer useful. They aren't using them because they don't have them.

 

Your kids can read 300 page novels when their friends can't? That means your kids are able to sit still and focus. It means they can absorb larger quantities of information on a wider range of topics than their friends. It means they can do this even when the topic isn't their favourite thing. Let's face it, in the workforce, most things they'll be dealing with won't be their top favourite interests. They'll be stuff that is required to do the job. Being able to concentrate even when the material isn't hugely interesting is a very important skill! People can't build and create out of nothing. Nothing comes out of brains unless it has gone it. You are putting information in. You are obliging your children to think about what is going in, and what is coming out. Creativity is matching the bits that go in together so they come back out in a better format. People are generally not that good at thinking, which is what we call that shuffling around process. They may do it, but practicing mediocre thinking skills makes you faster at mediocre thought. All those narrations, summaries and essays make our kids (or will make, in my case ;) ) think and refine their thinking skills.

 

As for multi-tasking. It's easier to multi-task when you can do the tasks. I don't think multi-tasking is a skill so much as the result of having skills. I can only cook, watch a movie, talk to kids and think about homeschooling curriculum if I am cooking something familiar and I've seen the movie dozens of times already. Our kids will be able to multi-task much better if they are proficient at writing reports, know the answers to the questions people keep ringing to ask, know how to fix minor bugs in their computers and be on chatting terms with the computer techie so he'll be motivated to come fix the computer when they can't. I know there is lots of talk about being tech-savvy, but a word processor isn't a heck of a lot of use if you can't write a decent report. It doesn't write the report for you. Powerpoint programs don't do your thinking for you, either. To use those programs, you need to have an idea, to be able to think it through, and to be able to refine it. You have to do all of that. The program will only make it look pretty on a screen.

 

 

Rosie

[jenL]

My sister and I just had this conversation 2 days ago! I am for the good books and reading intensely and plentifully. She worries that focusing on reading classics and the like will cause a child to be "disconnected from society" when we are such a technology based culture and it will continue to grow. She expressed the concern that focusing on classics and teaching with an emphasis on reading will shelter a child from society. I argued that classics teach us the past and how we can relate it to the present and future.

 

I believe technology is JUST A TOOL. It is not the means to an end, and I don't care if "society" is designating it as such. My children will learn how to use technology, but they will not (while under my tutelage) become dependent upon it. Problem-solving is not only learned through technology. Rather, subjects like logic, grammar, Latin, science, and math will teach a child these skills... as will research projects, hands-on experiements, community projects, and life experiences.

 

I may be in the minority, but for my children, technology is not going to be the be-all-end-all, and I will not give up teaching using books, primary sources, and old-fashioned techniques.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I discovered WTM, Sonlight and Ambleside Online last year and fell in love with them. :001_smile: The way I teach my kids is basically by reading to them. We read several hours a day, they love it and they learn tons. They read high quality books, and miles above the reading done in the school system. I thought I was doing a great job homeschooling them and that they would end up with a wonderful education. Then I watched PBS Frontline's Digital Nation:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/

 

And now I am completely second-guessing myself! :confused: The thing that bothered me most about the show was when someone said that in the future people will not need to remember information as much but rather problem solve, create, build and multitask.

 

It seemed that all the people who were interviewed who believed that the ability for sustained learning is important were of the older generation who will be retired by the time my children enter the workforce. If my children are able to read 300-page novels but the vast majority of their generation cannot is it really useful? If most of their generation writes in paragraphs rather than essay-form will their way of writing be considered old-fashioned and dated? Is it like someone today speaking or writing like Shakespeare? It might be more beautiful but you wouldn't really fit in.

 

The world has changed so much in the past decade. Really it has! Am I acknowledging that when I choose to focus on books or am I clinging to old ways that will become obsolete? If all their peers grow up multitasking all the time will they be at a disadvantage if their education has focused on sustained learning? Will they be able to relate to their peers?

 

I realize that this is a Classical education board and that most of you read books a great deal like us but I am hoping to spark a bit of debate and hear lots of opinions and ideas on this so I can develop the best way of teaching my children.

 

I have no beef with my kids being able to operate our electronic tools. We use DVDs for Latin, and often look things up on the computer. But I also remember the hours that I put into programming in BASIC in my own jr high days. Using a tape drive as memory storage or punching out part of the casing of a 5 1/4 " floppy so I could use both sides. None of these skill have done much for me.

 

What has allowed me to succeed in a variety of situations from being an engineering division officer on a ship to analyzing Balkans' politics to running a Boy Scout troop is my ability to read a lot and produce written products quickly. I also have an understanding that there are very few new things in the world and that there is probably a model for whatever situation is stressing me in something that I've read.

 

If you look at the leaders of the digital age, what you find is that they are leaders not because they were the most proficient users of an interface or piece of gear, but because they had the best imaginations for how things might connect in a different way. One great way to gain the insight into connections is to spend a lot of time reading about the past. (How European serfdom relates to the downfall of the Roman empire or how killing one guy in Sarajevo can get all of Europe onto a battlefield [For that matter, why was the guy in Sarajevo to begin with, there is a story there too.])

 

History and literature teaches us about surviving tragedy, joining forlorn hopes just because someone has to, striving for years and decades to bring about a change, failing and picking up the pieces and going at it again.

 

Do you really struggle to use your iPod or this forum or to run a DVD player? Yet none of these are more than about 10 years old. Technology just isn't that difficult. Thinking takes a lifetime of practice. Digital natives haven't impressed me as being nearly as clever as they think that they are. There is a sense that if it doesn't show up on the first Google search then it isn't out there to be known or doesn't matter.

 

I would suggest Who Killed Homer? by Hanson and Heath as a good summary of why classic matter.

[elizabeth]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554 An article by MIT grad that clearly states an opposite POV.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97jul/computer.htm REad High Tech Heretic by Stoll if you want the other side of the equation. Fancy packaging , slick images cannot hide the fact that there is often little substance and a whole lotta bs going on in the projects driven by an addiction to the latest gadget driven learning. There is a reason there is always a new gizmo, it detracts from the simple fact that the principle of garbae in , garbage out has never been more true. Give me the person who can compose a plan on a scrap of paper with a pencil or spontaneously outline a series of arguments both pro and con with an evaluation that points to arguments not previously contemplated by either side. That is the one I want solving problems not some tired old, rehashed idea in dressed up packaging.

[Jean in Newcastle]

This is just anecdotal, but my ds who has been taught using a book-based curriculum is very good with digital media, multi-tasking, problem solving, creating and building. You have to have something in your brain before doing those things - esp the problem solving, creating and building.

[OrganicAnn]

When TV became popular they used to worry that no one would read books and that we would be using TV to do all the teaching in the future.

 

You never really know where the future is headed and what the jobs will be. Even with computers, it wasn't that long ago when there wasn't an internet and when people thought of computer knowledge they thought everyone was going to learn programming.

 

Writing, analyzing, math, learning how to learn are all things that can be adapted to whatever the future holds.

[Peela]

Well, this seems to be an issue coming up regularly for me lately on these boards, but are we educating our kids only for the job market? Or are we educating them because being well educated gives one a higher quality of life?

If I read classics to my kids over 12 years, and those sorts of books become natural for them, and if I teach them to write clearly both research articles, essays AND solid paragraphs....aren't they going to be ahead of the game anyway? If they can diagram sentences even if they dont HAVE to diagram sentences to get by in life, they have an extra tool in their kit...and believe it or not, that tool gives many of us much pleasure (and I didnt learn to diagram sentences until my kids learned).

Yes, there is way too much information out there for any child to be able to absorb in one childhood's education, and yes they need to learn to be able to filter and multitask and all that- but dont you also read classics to them to help them set their moral compass correctly, for life? If they only read modern , easy to read books, because they are only goign to "need" to read at an age 12 standard to get by in life, are they getting the same soul nourishment as reading a range of books including a large amount of classics?

 

If all their peers received a mediocre and dumbed down education, and they received a brilliant, perhaps slightly old fashioned, but very deep and rich education....do you honestly think they will resent you for it?

 

I am still grateful for the fairly solid education I received as a child, and I am even more grateful for the classical education I have received while homeschooling my kids. It has enriched my life immensely, and opened many doors in my mind and heart to books and concept that were previously closed to me. So much more opens up to you when you just know Greek mythology and especially Homer. It's amazing. Let alone King Arthur, the Canterbury tales and some old fashioned poetry.

 

Our society is way too career driven. Education is for life- its not about money. And its hardly a disadvantage to most careers, either. Let's not dumb down our kids just because we can get away with it. We can train them for the modern world best by giving them a solid foundation of knowledge, as well as training them in skills. Knowledge trains their memories and it gives context to everything.

I think we need to give them much, much more than what they "need" for survival. What will they have to fall back on if they only have what they need to pass a job interview?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Peela

[KristenS]

But I also remember the hours that I put into programming in BASIC in my own jr high days.

 

Oddly, learning BASIC as a kid actually has helped me ... it was logical thinking, and I taught myself (out of books of course!), so it was good practice for self-learning down the road. Sure, I don't actually use BASIC anymore ... but it was a good intro to programming, and it helped me transition into Hypercard programming on the Mac later (which impressed the socks off my boyfriend at the time, when he tried to show me some fancy object-oriented language he was learning, and I got it quicker than he did ... and he was a programmer!).

 

My dh was into computers and programming as a kid, and has made a solid career as a software engineer. But he also likes books ... he's not the fanatical reader that I am, but then that's probably healthier anyway. LOL.

 

So ... all tools have their place, and learning is good, even if it does become 'outdated'. We're still looking for a way to teach our son BASIC (my dh found a cool emulator) just to use the cool resources I saved from childhood (anyone read the Micro Adventure series?) and to utilize his logical thinking skills. He's gonna take after his daddy, most likely, and we think it'll be a blast for him, even if it isn't 'useful' in a money-making sense.

 

But I am BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS all the way!

[Kirch]

This is just anecdotal, but my ds who has been taught using a book-based curriculum is very good with digital media, multi-tasking, problem solving, creating and building. You have to have something in your brain before doing those things - esp the problem solving, creating and building.

 

:iagree: Someone who has never learned to think deeply or critically is likely not going to have the tools in his/her mental toolbox to do any worthwhile problem-solving, creating, and building. Also, if you are capable of writing in essay form, writing a paragraph when that is what's needed will be a piece of cake. AND you'll be much more likely to be able to assess the situation and figure out what kind of writing (to continue your example) is required.

[Susan in KY]

I'm pretty sure that not reading the old books—or at the very least about history—will doom us to repeat some nasty episodes. Just the decline we have seen since the 60's in reading and a body of knowledge being passed along has the USA looking a lot like the Roman empire as it was about to collapse. Replace gladiator fights with video games, among other things, and there's not a great deal of difference between our society and theirs.... :tongue_smilie:

[Colleen in NS]

People can't build and create out of nothing. Nothing comes out of brains unless it has gone it. You are putting information in. You are obliging your children to think about what is going in, and what is coming out. Creativity is matching the bits that go in together so they come back out in a better format. ...All those narrations, summaries and essays make our kids (or will make, in my case ;) ) think and refine their thinking skills.

 

I don't think multi-tasking is a skill so much as the result of having skills.

 

If I read classics to my kids over 12 years, and those sorts of books become natural for them, and if I teach them to write clearly both research articles, essays AND solid paragraphs....aren't they going to be ahead of the game anyway? If they can diagram sentences even if they dont HAVE to diagram sentences to get by in life, they have an extra tool in their kit...and believe it or not, that tool gives many of us much pleasure (and I didnt learn to diagram sentences until my kids learned).

 

but dont you also read classics to them to help them set their moral compass correctly, for life?

 

Our society is way too career driven. Education is for life- its not about money.

 

:iagree: Someone who has never learned to think deeply or critically is likely not going to have the tools in his/her mental toolbox to do any worthwhile problem-solving, creating, and building. Also, if you are capable of writing in essay form, writing a paragraph when that is what's needed will be a piece of cake. AND you'll be much more likely to be able to assess the situation and figure out what kind of writing (to continue your example) is required.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

We *need* to learn these thinking skills in order to process all the info. out there. We're also human, and I believe humanity is much more important than technology - learning about the history of various areas (science, technology, politics, geography, arts, music, literature, etc. etc. etc.) helps us to learn about humanity in general and to keep our hearts and souls intact, instead of giving them up to things that sometimes seem bigger (war, hopelessness, technology, etc.). Everyone learns *content* at different rates, but if we set ourselves up with a mental toolbox of learning skills, we'll be able to educate ourselves for the rest of our lives. This in turn will help us to multitask, team-build, create, etc. when we need to.

[bookfiend]

I believe reading classic literature is necessary for a building large and nuanced vocabulary. An expansive vocabulary aids complex thinking and original ideas. If you are close to my age (47), ask yourself, when did you learn to use a computer? I was 25 and finished with formal academia.

 

The how-to's of life are a rapidly changing, functional information set, and imo easily acquired. The whys, wherefores, and what-to-do-about-its, however, need higher level cognition.

[Gratia271]

The how-to's of life are a rapidly changing, functional information set, and imo easily acquired. The whys, wherefores, and what-to-do-about-its, however, need higher level cognition.

 

:iagree:

 

As Jen aptly stated, technology is just a tool. We are so driven by technology initiatives that we have forgotten the requisite abilities to continue that innovation. People have fallen into this skills training mentality with their children's education. I want educated children, not "trained" children.

[Mommyfaithe]

I think that stuff is a lot of honk. Look at job adverts.

 

"Strong communication skills required."

"Strong written skills required."

 

We've been job searching for months, and I hesitated in putting some of those jobs on hubby's shortlist because his skills are not strong. I was talking to a friend and she laughed. "Apply anyway," she said. "No one has strong skills." She's right, it seems. Hubby got a bit of temp work the other week, and one of his assignments was to proof read a computer program training manual. His English skills are pretty ordinary, but he came home telling me that the chap who wrote the manual didn't even know the difference between a common and a proper noun, so hadn't capitalised properly. That guy has crappy grammar, but he wanted it corrected, didn't he?

 

So, if your kids are the only ones applying for jobs that actually do have strong English skills, they're going to look pretty darn good compared to everyone else. People aren't using these skills because they are no longer useful. They aren't using them because they don't have them.

 

Your kids can read 300 page novels when their friends can't? That means your kids are able to sit still and focus. It means they can absorb larger quantities of information on a wider range of topics than their friends. It means they can do this even when the topic isn't their favourite thing. Let's face it, in the workforce, most things they'll be dealing with won't be their top favourite interests. They'll be stuff that is required to do the job. Being able to concentrate even when the material isn't hugely interesting is a very important skill! People can't build and create out of nothing. Nothing comes out of brains unless it has gone it. You are putting information in. You are obliging your children to think about what is going in, and what is coming out. Creativity is matching the bits that go in together so they come back out in a better format. People are generally not that good at thinking, which is what we call that shuffling around process. They may do it, but practicing mediocre thinking skills makes you faster at mediocre thought. All those narrations, summaries and essays make our kids (or will make, in my case ;) ) think and refine their thinking skills.

 

As for multi-tasking. It's easier to multi-task when you can do the tasks. I don't think multi-tasking is a skill so much as the result of having skills. I can only cook, watch a movie, talk to kids and think about homeschooling curriculum if I am cooking something familiar and I've seen the movie dozens of times already. Our kids will be able to multi-task much better if they are proficient at writing reports, know the answers to the questions people keep ringing to ask, know how to fix minor bugs in their computers and be on chatting terms with the computer techie so he'll be motivated to come fix the computer when they can't. I know there is lots of talk about being tech-savvy, but a word processor isn't a heck of a lot of use if you can't write a decent report. It doesn't write the report for you. Powerpoint programs don't do your thinking for you, either. To use those programs, you need to have an idea, to be able to think it through, and to be able to refine it. You have to do all of that. The program will only make it look pretty on a screen.

 

 

Rosie

 

Once again....:iagree:...with Rosie.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think that the reason I want to spend time with my kids not only learning science and math but also history and literature is that the history will help them to learn about how technological advances effected the past and thus be able to predict how it will effect the future.

 

There has been a steady trickle of articles and columns lately about the death of military history and some of the consequences of living ahistorically.

 

There is a good column in the Naval History blog from a couple weeks back.

[amsunshine]

I didn't read all the replies, but just wanted to say that I believe Digital Nation was portraying the new lack of emphasis on book reading, etc, in a negative light. From what I remember of the show, the experts were saying these kids that think they are such great multitaskers are actually very poor at multitasking. Their brains aren't necessarily being developed in positive ways.

 

I dunno, maybe I misinterpreted....but the show made me even more determined to follow a more or less "classical" model of education.:001_smile:

[Carol in Cal.]

1. When you're working on a computer, you have to be able to write credibly, because more so than in other kinds of jobs your writing represents you solely. If you're face to face you can compensate for a lot, but when you're on the computer not so much. So you'd better know how to write extremely well.

2. If you believe "The Earth is Flat", most jobs that will continue in first world countries in the economy of tomorrow will be the ones that MUST be hands on (kind of low level to pink collar to blue collar) or the ones that are so unusually sophisticated and rare that those who do them can write their own tickets and live anywhere they want. A classical education either helps those in the hands on jobs to happily occupy their minds, or helps those with that unusual ones to think outside the box and be self-disciplined. It's all good.

2. a. And anyway, job choices are not everything that an education is for. I actually don't mind if my DD never uses her history and literary knowledge on the job. I want her to be an interesting, interested person. I want her to be able to occupy herself without going to the mall. I want her to be able to be thrown back on her own resources and enjoy the trip. I want her to be able to make good, strong moral choices. I want her to be a sincere and also fun Christian. A modified classical education like the one I have given her up until now is the very best way to accomplish this.

3. Everyone I know who programs has been obsessed with programming since about birth. It's reflected in their work ethic. They basically live at work and maintain caffeine IV drips. My DD is not one of the obsessed. And anyway, those programming jobs are going overseas. It's obvious. You can ship the work over the internet, so why would you pay first world salaries for it? So relying on large income programming jobs going forward is stupid unless you're one of the obsessed. Sorry about that, but it's true.

4. And besides, literature based education is enjoyable and builds minds that can go in any direction.

[Aubrey]

The thing that bothered me most about the show was when someone said that in the future people will not need to remember information as much but rather problem solve, create, build and multitask.

 

People "problem solve" by applying the information they've learned.

 

They "create" by soaking up the great creations that have gone before them until they are able to sit down at the table along side the greats w/ something of their own to add to the Great Conversation.

 

Multitask? Um...what?

 

If there really comes a time when kids are no longer reading, memorizing, learning, or writing, the few who still do so will probably have the world as their oyster. I'd be more worried about them turning Machiavellian than not fitting in. ;)

[StartingOver]

I will teach my children to read and think for themselves. I will teach computer skills also. But to me a Well Educated Mind is what we will need most in the future. Something very special is being lost on our youth.

[MyFourSons]

This is just anecdotal, but my ds who has been taught using a book-based curriculum is very good with digital media, multi-tasking, problem solving, creating and building. You have to have something in your brain before doing those things - esp the problem solving, creating and building.

 

 

I completely agree, without critical thinking and solid analytical skills, how can you effectively problem solve?

 

My husband is an engineer, but his last few years in high school he truly struggled between his desire to be a high school english teacher or go into a math and science based career. He love of literature and ability to think analytically about a wide variety of subjects help make him a great problem solver and engineer.

 

As a former teacher, I always emphasized books in my curriculum. My students has a half hour of computer science a week, but books were the main source of learning in the regular classroom. Your brain is more active when either reading visually or listening to someone read audibly then when it is stimulated visually, as in a television or computer screen.

[....]

Don't second-guess yourself if what you're doing is working.

 

We use stuff like Sonlight, Apologia, etc. My oldest kids are 8 and 7. I think they have better cognitive skills and better judgement than some adults I've seen. If my 8 year-old didn't weigh 65 pounds, she could probably pass for an adult and hold down a job. :D They're not going to be hindered in any way because of our curriculum approach.

 

They're always going to play on the computer....so those skills will develop on their own. We used a workbook/textbook curriculum when I was in school and I can find my way aaaaaall over the internet (sometimes a little too much). :tongue_smilie: And how many times a day CAN my sister text me? :glare: And the things my husband can google...:001_huh:

 

I think living books are the way to go with this techie generation. :001_smile:

[cathmom]

Fancy packaging , slick images cannot hide the fact that there is often little substance and a whole lotta bs going on in the projects driven by an addiction to the latest gadget driven learning. There is a reason there is always a new gizmo, it detracts from the simple fact that the principle of garbae in , garbage out has never been more true. Give me the person who can compose a plan on a scrap of paper with a pencil or spontaneously outline a series of arguments both pro and con with an evaluation that points to arguments not previously contemplated by either side. That is the one I want solving problems not some tired old, rehashed idea in dressed up packaging.

 

The bolded part is what drives me crazy now about TV shows. Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution was one of them. How many times do I need to hear him say, "Letting these kids cook the food for these important guests was a massive risk!" ?? Once, I got it. Twice, ok. Three times? MOVE ON!

 

My daughters and I watched a 2 hour documentary on the Black Death on the History Channel. This 2 hour program had MAYBE 20 minutes of actual content. My daughters were so annoyed - they wanted DETAILS!

[Lizzie in Ma]

I have no beef with my kids being able to operate our electronic tools. We use DVDs for Latin, and often look things up on the computer. But I also remember the hours that I put into programming in BASIC in my own jr high days. Using a tape drive as memory storage or punching out part of the casing of a 5 1/4 " floppy so I could use both sides. None of these skill have done much for me.

 

What has allowed me to succeed in a variety of situations from being an engineering division officer on a ship to analyzing Balkans' politics to running a Boy Scout troop is my ability to read a lot and produce written products quickly. I also have an understanding that there are very few new things in the world and that there is probably a model for whatever situation is stressing me in something that I've read.

 

If you look at the leaders of the digital age, what you find is that they are leaders not because they were the most proficient users of an interface or piece of gear, but because they had the best imaginations for how things might connect in a different way. One great way to gain the insight into connections is to spend a lot of time reading about the past. (How European serfdom relates to the downfall of the Roman empire or how killing one guy in Sarajevo can get all of Europe onto a battlefield [For that matter, why was the guy in Sarajevo to begin with, there is a story there too.])

 

History and literature teaches us about surviving tragedy, joining forlorn hopes just because someone has to, striving for years and decades to bring about a change, failing and picking up the pieces and going at it again.

 

Do you really struggle to use your iPod or this forum or to run a DVD player? Yet none of these are more than about 10 years old. Technology just isn't that difficult. Thinking takes a lifetime of practice. Digital natives haven't impressed me as being nearly as clever as they think that they are. There is a sense that if it doesn't show up on the first Google search then it isn't out there to be known or doesn't matter.

 

I would suggest Who Killed Homer? by Hanson and Heath as a good summary of why classic matter.

 

Well said. :iagree::iagree:

[PrincipledPilgrim]

From the 5/15 WSJ

 

Why Liberal Education Matters

 

The true aim of the humanities is to prepare citizens for exercising their freedom responsibly.

 

 

 

By PETER BERKOWITZ

In 1867, when he discharged his main responsibility as honorary rector of St. Andrews University by delivering an address on liberal education to the students, the philosopher and civil servant John Stuart Mill felt compelled to defend the place of the sciences alongside the humanities. Today it is the connection of the humanities to a free mind and citizenship in a free society that requires defense.

 

For years, an array of influential voices has been calling for our nation's schools and universities to improve science and math education. Given the globalized and high-tech world, the prize, pundits everywhere argue, goes to the nations that summon the foresight and discipline to educate scientists and engineers capable of developing tomorrow's ideas.

 

No doubt science and math are vital. But all of the attention being paid to these disciplines obscures a more serious problem: the urgent need to reform liberal education.

 

At the university level, enrollments in humanities courses have fallen precipitously and philosophical positivism is rampant. Many social scientists go beyond the sensible view that the scientific method is indispensable to achieving knowledge to a more dogmatic view that it is the one true form of reasoned inquiry and that only its results deserve to be called knowledge. The positivists disparage all other forms of inquiry and analysis as literature or journalism—by which they mean writings that are intrinsically unsystematic, subjective and of little intellectual value.

 

At the primary and secondary education level, according to UNESCO statistics, America spends more instructional time on math and science than almost any other country surveyed. We also spend significantly more money per student than the countries that beat us in international math and science tests, including Japan and South Korea. Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicate that over the course of a student's primary and secondary education, the U.S. spends around $123,000 on educating students, Japan about $92,000, and Korea about $74,000.

 

Nevertheless, American primary grade students' overall test scores fall in the middle of the pack of the high-income, democratic countries that compose the OECD, while American secondary students' overall test scores tend toward the bottom. The highest achievers do pretty well, although their performance comes in below the average among the OECD's highest achievers.

 

So science and math education is a mixed bag, resources are not the problem, and reform is very much in the national interest. But science and math education reform begins with the reform of liberal education, of which it is a part.

 

Liberal education supposes that while individual rights are shared equally by all, the responsible exercise of those rights is an achievement that depends on cultivating the mind. Reading, writing and arithmetic are the basics that free societies rightly hold parents responsible for ensuring that their children master. Many of these children live productive and satisfying lives with the knowledge and training they acquire by the time they graduate from high school. Still, the liberal education to which our colleges and universities pay lip service represents the culmination of a citizen's preparation for freedom.

 

The drop in humanities enrollments has a lot to do with the pretentious and opaque theorizing that humanities professors have inserted between students and the study of history, literature and philosophy. Meanwhile, confused faculty and incoherent university curricula encourage students to equate liberal education with studying whatever they please. Education for freedom requires more systematic training.

 

How can one think independently about what kind of life to live without acquiring familiarity with the ideas about happiness and misery, exaltation and despair, nobility and baseness that study of literature, philosophy and religion bring to life? How can one pass reasoned judgment on public policy if one is ignorant of the principles of constitutional government, the operation of the market, the impact of society on perception and belief and, not least, the competing opinions about justice to which democracy in America is heir?

 

How can one properly evaluate America's place in the international order without an appreciation of the history of the rise and fall of nations, and that familiarity with allies and adversaries that comes from serious study of their languages, cultures and beliefs?

 

A proper education, culminating in a liberal education, gives science an honored place. It teaches students, among other things, the fundamentals of the scientific method and the contribution that science has made to human security, freedom and prosperity; it exposes all students to the basic achievements of biology, chemistry and physics; and it encourages those with aptitude to specialize. At the same time, a liberal education brings into focus the limits of science, beginning with the impossibility of explaining the value of science and math in scientific and mathematical terms—to say nothing of science's incapacity to account for the worth and dignity of the individual.

 

For the sake of science and math, for the sake of international competitiveness, and even more for the sake of defending the worth and dignity of the individual, the reinvigoration of the humanities and the restoration of liberal education as education for freedom must become a priority.

 

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, where he co-chairs the task force on the virtues of a free society.

[StartingOver]

I will not allow my children to be cheated out of a real education. It takes years to learn in a classical way, but what they gain from that is amazing in my opinion. They can learn to use computers very well in a final senior year. They may learn programming or other computer based interests as extra curricular's in highschool. But they must follow my plan first. I think this country will be in desperate need of the kinds of children we are raising. I don't see knowledge as outdated, ever !!

Edited May 16, 2010 by alatexan68

[Guest mrsjamiesouth]

I discovered WTM, Sonlight and Ambleside Online last year and fell in love with them. :001_smile: The way I teach my kids is basically by reading to them. We read several hours a day, they love it and they learn tons. They read high quality books, and miles above the reading done in the school system. I thought I was doing a great job homeschooling them and that they would end up with a wonderful education. Then I watched PBS Frontline's Digital Nation:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/

 

And now I am completely second-guessing myself! :confused: The thing that bothered me most about the show was when someone said that in the future people will not need to remember information as much but rather problem solve, create, build and multitask.

 

It seemed that all the people who were interviewed who believed that the ability for sustained learning is important were of the older generation who will be retired by the time my children enter the workforce. If my children are able to read 300-page novels but the vast majority of their generation cannot is it really useful? If most of their generation writes in paragraphs rather than essay-form will their way of writing be considered old-fashioned and dated? Is it like someone today speaking or writing like Shakespeare? It might be more beautiful but you wouldn't really fit in.

 

The world has changed so much in the past decade. Really it has! Am I acknowledging that when I choose to focus on books or am I clinging to old ways that will become obsolete? If all their peers grow up multitasking all the time will they be at a disadvantage if their education has focused on sustained learning? Will they be able to relate to their peers?

 

I realize that this is a Classical education board and that most of you read books a great deal like us but I am hoping to spark a bit of debate and hear lots of opinions and ideas on this so I can develop the best way of teaching my children.

 

 

The idea of not needing to read Books sounds like another coming of The Dark Ages to me. If you only have a computer then all knowledge can be controlled by somebody.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Today's intellectual environment is a whirlwind. To survive, we're clinging to the past. It's roots are deeper and wider.

 

But you're asking a person who uses a Latin and memorization based curriculum that the world decided was wrong for the nineteenth century.

[simka2]

I think I was just reading in the TWTM about "Logic." About fallicies and illogical conclusions....hmmmmm....sounds like that is what is going on here. :)

[Frontier Mom]

Upon watching this, I set up an interactive site for our home school. The link is in my siggy. I haven't done nearly as much as I plan to do with this but it is my feeble attempt to merge reading with technology. I plan on having interactive learning going on with the reading of classics. Lord only knows what that will be called!!

[Ester Maria]

Many people think that it is - not "wrong" as much as "inappropriate", as in, not in tune with the needs of the time and the society we live in. Some of them also list reasons such as the whole "way of thinking" and getting and processing information shifting from the linear/reading to the visual mode, and that the education should adjust to that. If you take a look around yourself, you will see a world of mega posters, visual ads, documentaries relying on the visual component, the unique combination in which the picture and the movement transmits 90% of the message, with the words accompanying it only as an accessory; in the spirit of that, you will also see a shift from the explicit message (such as conveyed through a linear text) to the often implicit and ambiguous message of pictures, that are meant to communicate a "feeling" more than a "thought".

 

Not so long ago I talked with a couple of colleagues about this very problem and some of them who work in schools pointed to that very clearly - they're teaching children what they (children) regard as an outdated literacy, in the world which requires out of them to be "literate" in sense of "media literacy" which relies only minimally to the linear world of text. And while text will probably always remain a way of getting knowledge on some topic and communicate that knowledge (even in the virtual sphere - we're on the message boards right now, but we communicate with a text; only the medium has changed), there are more and more "new ways" that suit better the children of this epoch to learn.

 

The problem is, until the ENTIRE epoch leaves behind text as a way of functioning and sets new standards of what constitutes the thought/intellectual elite, until the way of thinking fundamentally changes (to the proportions parallel to those of a change that the literacy originally meant for the culture of orality) and the new paradigm becomes a mainstream of the transmission of cultural knowledge, with the text being secondary, THEN we might talk about changing the way we school.

All until then, we're talking about technology as a tool of the culture that still functions as a culture of textual literacy - and within such and such culture, the elite will be the textually literate ones, i.e. the "book-educated" ones if you wish, because they will be the only ones to be able to comprehend, form and articulate complex thoughts in the form agreed upon that has been prevalent for the past millennia.

 

I don't see the fundamental change occurring for a long time to come, honestly. We're still speakers, rather than visual-communicators when we gather; we still provide written instructions; in the internet zone, we still communicate via text - as a matter of fact, I would dare to claim that the technology has reinforced the textual literacy as the fundamental means of communication past the superficial level of ads on the street and films taking place of recreational reading.

 

The new media we consume are mostly "free time", recreational media, and we don't think in a fundamentally different way to seriously learn. We do that through text (literacy) and through discussion (orality, in a changed form as opposed to the pre-literary society). As such, what makes a distinct learner still remains the being well-versed in the ways of the text and discussion.

 

/ If I sound confusing, it's because it's very late.

[jvenice]

In one of my husband's MBA classes the other day they said that if the web had been invented before the book, people would consider the book to be an improvement because of its ease of use, portability, etc. Just remember that knowledge and information are entirely different things. Children may know how to text, tweet, and chat all at the same time but that doesn't mean that their conversations mean anything. If we are teaching our children how to think and are surrounding them with great ideas and living books, while exposing them to technology, they will be the problem solvers and great thinkers of their day. Keep heart, stay the course.