TOC's Homeschool Minute issue: Classical Education

[Wee Pip]

Just wondering if anyone read today's email issue of The Homeschool Minute put out by The Old Schoolhouse Magazine? The topic is Classical Education. I was surprised that most of the writers didn't really know anything about it. One writer posted a bunch of links (although she wasn't Classical herself). Ruth Beechick wrote a rather scathing review of learning Latin. So I guess Classical isn't a popular choice at TOC! I think the magazine as a whole tends to lean towards lapbooks, unit studies, and ecclectic. Copying/pasting Mrs. Beechick's article here for those interested:

 

It's Just Common Sense

Ruth Beechick, Curriculum Specialist

and

Debbie Strayer, Homeschool Consultant

 

 

Classical. I'll take the negative side. And in this short space, I'll list just one reason: Latin language. When this first came to English education, it was so students could read the Latin books when they got to college. There was little writing in the mother Germanic language, so the schools inherited Latin instead. We now have translations of all the books, so that original reason does not apply.

 

Puritans in those early days objected strongly to the pagan Latin literature, and most Christians today do too. So there's another reason gone.

 

Because ofteaching Latin, our English language has many words borrowed from Latin. Among good writers it became pretentious or snobbish to use Latin words when good English words would do. Dickens satirized the practice. Tennyson was proud that he used fewer Latin words in Idylls of the King than other poets had. English had the words cold, cool, chill, chilly, icy, and frosty, so writers did not need the Latin word frigid. Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, other poets, and the King James Bible do not contain frigid.

 

Some quotes: Linguist Otto Jespersen called the Latin infection a "malady that lingers on especially in the half-educated." An English writer in 1890 said, "The worst and most debased kinds of English styles are those which ape Latin." Luther said the grammarians' system provided "only enough bad Latin [to enable a man] to become a priest . . . and yet remain all his life a poor ignoramus, fit neither to cackle nor lay eggs." Erasmus said, "I have no patience with the average teacher of grammar who wastes precious years hammering rules into children's heads." The Puritans ridiculed it as "grammatical tyranny." A language professor today said he wasted his high school years on Latin; he wished he had studied a modern language instead.

 

There's a lot more, but the space is gone.

 

 

~ Ruth

[FlockOfSillies]

Is this the famous Ruth Beechick that people rave about? I can see why she doesn't like classical ed -- she's completely ignorant of logic. I find it hard to believe that someone as seemingly dimwitted as she appears in this column has made a name for herself in the education field. Good heavens.

[dangermom]

So, classical education consists entirely of Latin?

[forty-two]

So, classical education consists entirely of Latin?

In her defense, Latin is the traditional core of beginning classical education. It's not the entirety of it, but it was the necessary first step - I'm not really a fan of treating Latin as an optional add-on to a classical education (though it certainly isn't necessary for a good education).

 

I'm very much interested in the context of the Luther quote, since he was much in favor of a classical education, though he certainly took issue with some particular aspects of the scholastic approach to classical ed.

 

And the bit about how we should stick to good Anglo-Saxon words, no pretentious borrowing from other languages, has me :lol:.

[forty-two]

Because ofteaching Latin, our English language has many words borrowed from Latin. Among good writers it became pretentious or snobbish to use Latin words when good English words would do. Dickens satirized the practice. Tennyson was proud that he used fewer Latin words in Idylls of the King than other poets had. English had the words cold, cool, chill, chilly, icy, and frosty, so writers did not need the Latin word frigid. Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, other poets, and the King James Bible do not contain frigid.

 

Anyone else sorely tempted to highlight all the words of Latin origin in her anti-Latin screed :D?

[angela in ohio]

Yes, why use a beautiful Latin word when you can use a short, ugly Germanic word? :glare: I was a fan of Mrs. Beechick, but she seems to be getting more and more....

 

Anyway, TOS lost me when they became uber-commercial and started theit "media empire." :D

 

I can tell you that the study of Latin and very formal grammar in my high school years has been the very best educational thing to happen in my life.

[Colleen in NS]

When this first came to English education, it was so students could read the Latin books when they got to college..... We now have translations of all the books, so that original reason does not apply.

 

I dunno 'bout that; I've read several times here on these boards that some actually do still like to read in the original language, so that nuances can be picked up on, that you can't get in translations.

 

Puritans in those early days objected strongly to the pagan Latin literature, and most Christians today do too. So there's another reason gone.

 

"Most Christians?" I don't think so. Besides, so on one hand, we can read English translations (and therefore don't need to learn Latin), yet on the other hand, we Christians maybe shouldn't? She seems to contradict herself here.

 

Because ofteaching Latin, our English language has many words borrowed from Latin. Among good writers it became pretentious or snobbish to use Latin words when good English words would do. Dickens satirized the practice. Tennyson was proud that he used fewer Latin words in Idylls of the King than other poets had. English had the words cold, cool, chill, chilly, icy, and frosty, so writers did not need the Latin word frigid. Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, other poets, and the King James Bible do not contain frigid.

 

What about medical/scientific terminology? And so maybe some writers became pretentious a century or three ago - should we not use these English derivatives, even if they might make a piece of writing more interesting or accurate?? I don't think there is anything snobbish about "frigid" - it's pretty common.

 

Some quotes: Linguist Otto Jespersen called the Latin infection a "malady that lingers on especially in the half-educated."

 

Quoting this in defense of "no Latin" is a nice way to alienate many of your FELLOW homeschoolers, who are struggling along in this journey!! Infection? Really???

 

A language professor today said he wasted his high school years on Latin; he wished he had studied a modern language instead.

 

Sooo....study a modern language, then. People have all sorts of reasons for studying an ancient or a modern language - what does this have to do with anything??

 

Oops, this looks like I'm quoting WeePip, but I'm quoting the article she linked.

 

I'm rather shocked to read this by Beechick. Some of her earlier books did help me with early teaching - I'm surprised she wrote something like this - it is SO alienating, and though I don't have enough logic/writing skill yet to figure out why, it doesn't seem well-written to me. Even the few paragraphs written in the WTM book about unschooling are more respectful than this.

[FloridaLisa]

Anyone else sorely tempted to highlight all the words of Latin origin in her anti-Latin screed :D?

 

:lol:

 

I really liked Ruth Beechick's common-sense approach to homeschooling littles. She was an encouraging voice waaaay back when the market wasn't as crowded. I wouldn't write off everything she's done for homeschoolers, but this article wasn't her peak.

 

Lisa

[bearnpurple]

We do not do classical ed but I also wouldn't comment on something I don't know enough to comment about. I enjoy all of the writers comments but I also take them as opinions (or armpits everyone has one not all of them smell good :) )

 

TOC has had some good things (previously) that I might incorporate but I have also disagreed many times.

 

Again - why would they choose a topic that none of their writers can actually "write" about. :confused:

[Samiam]

I was kind of offended at the overall lack of information on the topic.

I mean, Really??? You are going to send out a newsletter with a topic heading and then basically say one, you know nothing about it, or two, you don't like it.

 

Why even have Classical Ed as a topic if none of your writers can discuss it????

 

Ignorance, I thought. Glad I never bought their magazine now.

[Aubrey]

Does anybody have a link to this? I was talking to the dc about this thread this AM, & they wrote responses. (Yay!) It seems like I ought to at least read the article to them, though, lol.

[Mimm]

That's a rant, not an argument. :)

[Laurie4b]

I liked some of Ruth Beechick's stuff that I read long ago when my kids were little.

 

This was so poorly written and poorly argued that I'm aghast. It sounds like an essay written by a middle school student who didn't want to write an essay and who didn't do any research into the subject.

 

Whatever.

[Kates]

You know, I'm not even what I would consider a classical homeschooler (we're more eclectic with a classical bent ;)), but even I found that issue of HM incredibly annoying. And RB's rant was at the top of my list for annoying inclusions.

 

I teach Latin and Greek...and not so that my students can only focus on ancient languages, but so that they can fully understand both their own language and their Bible. So much of English is based on Latin and Greek, but many students don't have an interest in analyzing it because, quite frankly, they don't see a point. They've heard the spoken language since the day they were born and don't need to analyze the finer details in order to speak it.

 

Being able to analyze the grammar in order to advance in another language, however, can be fun. It's a challenge. It's interesting. And at some point in time, lo and behold, it applies to English grammar and makes it all come together! :D

 

As for reading the English translations...well, that doesn't really work, either. English is largely based on Latin and Greek, but in some ways, it's worlds apart. Latin and Greek were incredibly specific and pictoral languages; word choice, sentence structure, word order, etc. were all picked for specific reasons. They make a big difference. Whether you're reading The Aeneid or the Bible, it makes a difference. There are many concepts and word pictures that come through clearly in the original languages that clearly get lost in the translation when it comes to English. It's not poor translation that results in that loss...it's just that English has no way to easily communicate what is crystal clear in the original languages.

 

I want my son and my students to be able to dig into those concepts and ideas for themselves - to know what they believe and why, to be able to spot fallacies and communicate truth. Spending a few years learning to really dig into an ancient language allows them to do that.

 

I can take the "I don't really know much about this, but here's some cool resources I found"...but the rants had me deleting that email quicker than anything.

[FaithManor]

Wow, the lack of rational thought was mind boggling. I guess she would be perfectly comfortable with a medical practitioner who did not understand his/her Latin!

 

DD is just so grateful that I taught Latin in our home. It is so easy for her to memorize medical terms and definitions because she knows her Latin root words, Additionally, we did the entire series of Calssical Roots and tested her heavily over them so she has her Greek roots well learned. It has been a wonderful benefit to her!

 

Faith

[OregonNative]

Awwww.............great! I just ordered a subscription to TOS:001_huh: And we are doing classical:willy_nilly:

[Kates]

They posted an apology in today's HM...and Ruth Beechick & Debbie Strayer's column was a reprint of Debbie's Christmas craft article from 3 years ago ;)

 

Even though this HM was dissapointing, it is worth noting that TOS does publish several great articles on classical homeschooling - including devoting one issue per year (out of four) to the method. I think this was more of a dissapointing weekly publication than a reflection of the entire organzation.

[Aubrey]

They posted an apology in today's HM...and Ruth Beechick & Debbie Strayer's column was a reprint of Debbie's Christmas craft article from 3 years ago ;)

 

Even though this HM was dissapointing, it is worth noting that TOS does publish several great articles on classical homeschooling - including devoting one issue per year (out of four) to the method. I think this was more of a dissapointing weekly publication than a reflection of the entire organzation.

 

Oh, I'm so glad to see this. The apology comes w/ 2 free WeE books about classical ed & a link to "forward to a friend." If anybody wants it, email me, & I'll pass it on.