Is there any curriculum that ISN'T classical??

[LittleIzumi]

I've seen a lot of threads lately on non-traditional curricula and how they depart from classical or are used in addition to classical curricula, and in every single one so far, people come to say no, that really IS classical because x,y, or z. Different reasons and different quotes and different definitions/aspects of "classical" have been used in each thread, but it seems like if it makes you think, it can somehow fall under the umbrella of "classical," and I can't imagine any curricula not making people think. So, is there any curriculum that truly is NOT classical at all, or can anything be tweaked/looked at in a certain light to make it classical in some way?

[8filltheheart]

Yes.....the workbook, fill in the blank, snippet textbook approach to education is mostly knowledge based and not a classical approach

[Mallory]

Or how about movie or computer game based?

 

Sure with both of these there is some give- a workbook, fill in the blank spelling program, okay. A computer game typing program, okay.

 

I also don't think every subject needs to be classically taught every year. And I don't think that "classical education" has to be in full force at 6 or 7 or even later (education hasn't always started that early). But by highschool most subjects should be based on reading and writing. Using your brain to figure out connections and see what is going on.

[forty-two]

I think there is a difference b/w XYZ program being classical, or classical-friendly, in itself, and a classical educator being able to use XYZ program in a classical fashion. My impression is that people are conflating the two - that if you are able to use XYZ in an authentic classical fashion, than voila! it must be, itself, classical. It very well may be true there there is no program that can't be used classically by *someone*, *somewhere*. But that doesn't make the program itself classical.

 

I mean, a program that explicitly says it is based on a philosophy that is antithetical to classical education is *not* classical, even if savvy classical educators can successfully subvert it ;).

[CoastalGal]

Yes.....the workbook, fill in the blank, snippet textbook approach to education is mostly knowledge based and not a classical approach

 

:iagree: -- although the A Beka salesman tried to convince me otherwise. :tongue_smilie:

[JenniferB]

It is not classical to learn social studies instead of history, which would include: community workers, parades, neighborhoods, etc. This is what they teach at the b&m public school in our school district instead of history. Classical history, according to SWB in TWTM, is taught chronologically.

Edited November 16, 2010 by JenniferB
struggling to write a cohesive sentence. :)~

[8filltheheart]

It is not classical to learn social studies instead of history, which would include: community workers, parades, neighborhoods, etc. This is what they teach at the b&m public school in our school district instead of history. Chronological history is the SWB classical way as described in The Well Trained Mind.

 

But cyclical history is not classical by any definition other than how Susan presents it in the WTM.

[Crimson Wife]

Yes.....the workbook, fill in the blank, snippet textbook approach to education is mostly knowledge based and not a classical approach

 

:iagree:

I would also say that from the books I've read about Waldorf education & what I've observed of families who follow that approach, Waldorf downplays academics in favor of "soft" skills.

[Tabrett]

:iagree:

I would also say that from the books I've read about Waldorf education & what I've observed of families who follow that approach, Waldorf downplays academics in favor of "soft" skills.

 

What are "soft" skills? I've never heard that term before.

[Testimony]

I would not call traditional curricula classical. First of all, true classical is a study of the classics. I would say studying Latin and Greek, the ancients, and the like is a classical education. A classical education is more like a liberal arts education in college. The only difference is there are more lessons in ancient Greek philosophers, etc.

 

Workbook studying is not really classical. I feel that living books with an author and the true original book not an excerpt of the text is true classical. There are many curricula out there that disguise themselves as classical, but don't come close.

 

This is just my opinion.

 

Blessing in your homeschooling journey!

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[JenniferB]

But cyclical history is not classical by any definition other than how Susan presents it in the WTM.

 

I knew someone would point that out, so that's why I qualified my statement as described in TWTM. I meant to say "in" the SWB way instead of "is" the SWB way. Oops - I'll make an edit now.

[Crimson Wife]

What are "soft" skills? I've never heard that term before.

 

What my engineering major DH would call "artsy-fartsy" stuff. All the knitting and other handicrafts, art, music, nature appreciation, pretend play, etc. stuff in Waldorf. Which is fine in moderation but not when those electives are given higher priority than basic academics.

[Gooblink]

How about Konos? It's almost as far away from "Classical" as you can get. :) It's based on character traits, rather than history; a unit study approach, full of good books and activities.

 

My boys retained a TON of information from our years of Konos.

[Mimm]

Funny. I have a kid who loves workbook style learning. I'm using Abeka grammar this year (and skipping all the writing, just using it to learn rules, etc.) and she's breezing through it. My nine year old gets frustrated with it, and I'm not very happy with it for various reasons. Basically, I picked it because I had to pick something and didn't know what. :) Still, I read things about "no workbooks" and I'm not sure what to do with a kid prefers them. :p

[Halcyon]

It is not classical to learn social studies instead of history, which would include: community workers, parades, neighborhoods, etc. This is what they teach at the b&m public school in our school district instead of history. Classical history, according to SWB in TWTM, is taught chronologically.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Halcyon]

Funny. I have a kid who loves workbook style learning. I'm using Abeka grammar this year (and skipping all the writing, just using it to learn rules, etc.) and she's breezing through it. My nine year old gets frustrated with it, and I'm not very happy with it for various reasons. Basically, I picked it because I had to pick something and didn't know what. :) Still, I read things about "no workbooks" and I'm not sure what to do with a kid prefers them. :p

 

 

My older likes workbooks too, so we use GWG for grammar, and Singapore for Math. He likes to be independent, so wb are good for that. But I still consider his education to be classical.

[forty-two]

Still, I read things about "no workbooks" and I'm not sure what to do with a kid prefers them. :p

I suppose it depends how important "no workbooks" are to you. I mean, my dd4 prefers to eat dessert at every available opportunity, but I, the mean parent, have decreed that desserts are an occasional treat only ;). Basically, do you see the workbook vs. whole/living books issue as a dessert vs fruit thing, or a chicken vs pork thing?

 

Food for thought :lol: (couldn't resist :D).

[Tabrett]

What my engineering major DH would call "artsy-fartsy" stuff. All the knitting and other handicrafts, art, music, nature appreciation, pretend play, etc. stuff in Waldorf. Which is fine in moderation but not when those electives are given higher priority than basic academics.

 

:glare:

.

.

.

.

 

????

 

Ok..... I know dc need the basics, but if you have an extremely "artsy-fartsy" dc, that is what they need to focus on. Not everyone is gifted in math and science.

 

I would have learned WAY more if my education had been based upon the arts. Being an "artsy-fartsy" person and all. Believe it or not, it is a mode of learning.

 

But, then again, I don't think dc who are gifted in math and science should have to sit though lots of art classes. Dc are individual and we need to find out what is the best way to educate them on an individual bases.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Tabrett

[TracyP]

 

Ok..... I know dc need the basics, but if you have an extremely "artsy-fartsy" dc, that is what they need to focus on. Not everyone is gifted in math and science.

 

I would have learned WAY more if my education had been based upon the arts. Being an "artsy-fartsy" person and all. Believe it or not, it is a mode of learning.

 

Yes, but is it classical? I don't know the answer btw, I'm just saying.

[Rosie_0801]

It is not classical to learn social studies instead of history, which would include: community workers, parades, neighborhoods, etc. This is what they teach at the b&m public school in our school district instead of history. Classical history, according to SWB in TWTM, is taught chronologically.

 

I think classical history has less to do with chronology and far more to do with teaching history as a discipline. That's exactly what they don't do with social studies.

 

Rosie

[Crimson Wife]

I know dc need the basics, but if you have an extremely "artsy-fartsy" dc, that is what they need to focus on. Not everyone is gifted in math and science.

 

I would have learned WAY more if my education had been based upon the arts. Being an "artsy-fartsy" person and all. Believe it or not, it is a mode of learning.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying. It's just when I read a 250+ page book on Waldorf education, it went on and on and on about all the artsy stuff and scant attention paid to the 3R's, science (aside from nature appreciation), and traditional history (as opposed to mythology & folklore). It was all "gravy" and very little "meat".

[Mimm]

My older likes workbooks too, so we use GWG for grammar, and Singapore for Math. He likes to be independent, so wb are good for that. But I still consider his education to be classical.

 

What is GWG?

[Tabrett]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. It's just when I read a 250+ page book on Waldorf education, it went on and on and on about all the artsy stuff and scant attention paid to the 3R's, science (aside from nature appreciation), and traditional history (as opposed to mythology & folklore). It was all "gravy" and very little "meat".

 

I don't use Waldorf, but have read a lot about it. I do like HOW they teach, but I don't like what Waldorf teaches. I would love a curriculum that taught phonics and math through/with the arts. Telling a story then teaching with the story the next day (sleeping on it) is a very intriguing idea of how to teach. What if the stories were not mythology, but were history stories? I think Waldorf has some very good ideas that I would love to see used with more "traditional" subject matter. Although die hard Waldorf followers will say that it is not truly Waldorf and it wouldn't be. I like to take the best from all ideas in education and put them into use. I have NO interest in Anthroposophy.

[Tabrett]

I'm going to go off on a limb here and say that "classical" education is more about teaching a dc appropriately at each developmental stage and teaching you dc a real grasp of history, LA, Science and Math.

 

Many schools today teach dc on a level that is not developmentally appropriate. They try to get dc to write too early. They don't give dc a good base in phonics or math. History has been demoted to social studies and Science is barely taught in elementary school.

 

If I were you, I would NOT put my focus on making sure my dc receive a "classical" education.

 

Do you know what you want you dc to learn?

Have you set goal for their education?

If not, this is where you need to start!

 

Do you want your dc to learn phonics? If so find a phonics program that will best fit you dc.

 

Do you want your dc to be able to communicate well in the written form? If so research and find the best program.

 

Do you want your dc to have a very strong grasp of world history or social studies?

 

Do you want your dc to understand mathematical reasoning or learn a method of doing basic math?

 

Do you want your dc to learn a language? And if so, why? Is it to speak fluently, is it to read works in the original language. Is it to have a better vocabulary? Do they need to learn more than one language and if so, what age do you want to start?

 

Is it important that your dc be educated in the arts: music, drama, visual?

 

How important is running a household in your opinion. Is domestic arts important to you?

 

And lastly, what type of world view do you want to instill in your dc? Religious? Humanistic?

 

Take all these factors, find out what you truly want you dc to learn, then research, research and research some more until you find what you deem the best age appropriate curriculum for your dc. And even after you thought you had the "best" you may find it doesn't work well with a dc and you will need to start the process all over.

 

I will assure you, if you do the above you will not fail you dc in their education.

 

If you follow TWTM, you will find that many resources suggested are not part of a classical curriculum. For example: Rod & Staff is NOT a classical curriculum. But many classical hs'er use their grammar because it is one of the best. But I would stay clear of R&S's history and science!

[angela in ohio]

Classical is more about how you use something than what it is. Some things lend themselves to a classical education better than others but many resources can be used in a classical way.

 

:iagree:

 

I can teach my dc out of the phone book classically. :D It's a method, not a specific product.

[angela in ohio]

What my engineering major DH would call "artsy-fartsy" stuff. All the knitting and other handicrafts, art, music, nature appreciation, pretend play, etc. stuff in Waldorf. Which is fine in moderation but not when those electives are given higher priority than basic academics.

 

I thought "soft skills" were things like communication and study skills, the non-academic skills that allow students to be successful in college. I've never heard it used that way, though I don't read Waldorf materials, so that may exaplain my confusion.

[Honey Bee]

:iagree:

 

I can teach my dc out of the phone book classically. :D It's a method, not a specific product.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol: Mental picture...

[Quiver0f10]

I'm going to go off on a limb here and say that "classical" education is more about teaching a dc appropriately at each developmental stage and teaching you dc a real grasp of history, LA, Science and Math.

 

Many schools today teach dc on a level that is not developmentally appropriate. They try to get dc to write too early. They don't give dc a good base in phonics or math. History has been demoted to social studies and Science is barely taught in elementary school.

 

If I were you, I would NOT put my focus on making sure my dc receive a "classical" education.

 

Do you know what you want you dc to learn?

Have you set goal for their education?

If not, this is where you need to start!

 

Do you want your dc to learn phonics? If so find a phonics program that will best fit you dc.

 

Do you want your dc to be able to communicate well in the written form? If so research and find the best program.

 

Do you want your dc to have a very strong grasp of world history or social studies?

 

Do you want your dc to understand mathematical reasoning or learn a method of doing basic math?

 

Do you want your dc to learn a language? And if so, why? Is it to speak fluently, is it to read works in the original language. Is it to have a better vocabulary? Do they need to learn more than one language and if so, what age do you want to start?

 

Is it important that your dc be educated in the arts: music, drama, visual?

 

How important is running a household in your opinion. Is domestic arts important to you?

 

And lastly, what type of world view do you want to instill in your dc? Religious? Humanistic?

 

Take all these factors, find out what you truly want you dc to learn, then research, research and research some more until you find what you deem the best age appropriate curriculum for your dc. And even after you thought you had the "best" you may find it doesn't work well with a dc and you will need to start the process all over.

 

I will assure you, if you do the above you will not fail you dc in their education.

 

If you follow TWTM, you will find that many resources suggested are not part of a classical curriculum. For example: Rod & Staff is NOT a classical curriculum. But many classical hs'er use their grammar because it is one of the best. But I would stay clear of R&S's history and science!

 

Excellent post!

[FO4UR]

To answer your question we first have to define "classical education." Many HSers I've met take "Classical" to mean anything that is difficult.:lol:

 

Latin & Greek, Reading & Thinking & Writing, Math & Science & Music...these things are central in a classical education.

 

I think chronological history aids the reading/thinking/writing process, but isn't the central theme.

 

I've never looked deeply into Waldorf, but I dare say music *is* a serious classical subject. It's uniquely linked with math & science. It's commonly referred to as "The Universal Language." It's a subject that few Americans understand, even at a surface level...as evidenced by the carp I hear on the radio.:tongue_smilie: The intellectual work involved in studying music theory and seriously analyzing music is exhaustive. I think music gets glossed over as a serious subject b/c few people have gone beyond "I like that." in their study of music and don't even KNOW what they are missing...like never having read Shakespeare and saying "Literature is dumb...my kids can watch a sitcom and we can discuss the characters and plot...why go through all that hard work for *nothing*?"

 

As far as currics go, I look for things that emphasize the learning process instead of quick results or high standardized test scores. I want my dc to apply what they learn in their lives. They should be different for having studied _____. Of course, I'm just really starting out on this journey so I'm still researching what curricula we will use.

[angela in ohio]

:lol::lol::lol: Mental picture...

 

And if I wrote it into a curriculum, someone would buy it. ;)

[FO4UR]

And if I wrote it into a curriculum, someone would buy it. ;)

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

And we could all chat about it here...LOLOLOL

[Irishmommy]

:lol::lol::lol:

 

And we could all chat about it here...LOLOLOL

 

 

And it would be the new "thing" in curriculum!:tongue_smilie:

[Crimson Wife]

I dare say music *is* a serious classical subject. It's uniquely linked with math & science. It's commonly referred to as "The Universal Language." It's a subject that few Americans understand, even at a surface level...as evidenced by the carp I hear on the radio.:tongue_smilie: The intellectual work involved in studying music theory and seriously analyzing music is exhaustive.

 

:iagree:

But serious music theory and analysis isn't the way music appears to be taught in Waldorf education from what I've observed. It's more dancing around to music (they call it "eurythmy").

 

My kids like to do the same thing but I consider that a leisure activity rather than a key part of their schooling. :tongue_smilie:

[Mommy22alyns]

What is GWG?

 

 

GWG = Growing With Grammar

[birchbark]

I don't use Waldorf, but have read a lot about it. I do like HOW they teach, but I don't like what Waldorf teaches. I would love a curriculum that taught phonics and math through/with the arts. Telling a story then teaching with the story the next day (sleeping on it) is a very intriguing idea of how to teach. What if the stories were not mythology, but were history stories? I think Waldorf has some very good ideas that I would love to see used with more "traditional" subject matter. Although die hard Waldorf followers will say that it is not truly Waldorf and it wouldn't be. I like to take the best from all ideas in education and put them into use. I have NO interest in Anthroposophy.

 

I know this is off-topic, but :thumbup1:

 

Tabrett, when you write this curriculum, will you PM me?

:)

[FO4UR]

:iagree:

But serious music theory and analysis isn't the way music appears to be taught in Waldorf education from what I've observed. It's more dancing around to music (they call it "eurythmy").

 

My kids like to do the same thing but I consider that a leisure activity rather than a key part of their schooling. :tongue_smilie:

 

Ah...I'm not very familiar with Waldorf so I can't speak specifically to what they do. Sometimes there is more to dancing around to music than meets the eye with littles though. It's a natural medium for teaching musical concepts. Not saying that's how Waldorf is using it. idk. I'm just saying that I don't jump into the symbolic language before teaching the concept in music any more than I would in math. Serious math builds upon a basic foundation...I use cuisenaire rods extensively to teach this level (which often looks like my dc are just playing around with colorful blocks and often they are LOL)...I would never jump into algebra before my students were fluent in the 4 basic operations. Likewise, serious music study builds upon fluency in the basic concepts of pitch, duration, intensity, and timbre. What looks like childs' play in the elementary years may be building the foundation for later study.

 

One of my favorite activities for k-2 level is listening to a variety of pieces in snippets, having the dc dance around exaggerating fast/slow, loud/soft, high/low, long/short. The verbiage used in this activity moves stealthily from terms like "walking feet, running feet, sliding feet" to "quarter note, eighth note, half note." It's very comparable to how I use C rods to demonstrate value in a playful manner before giving the terminology to describe it accurately.

 

I'm not saying I advocate Waldorf. I'm not saying every HSer needs to study music seriously. I am saying that it is a serious subject that fits into my definition of classical education. I am saying that music illiteracy is so very widespread that I dare say most educators (classical or not, HS or private or public school) would have no clue how to begin (hint: not by throwing them into rigorous private lessons with zero experience of the basic concepts). Besides, the task of just teaching these children the 3R's is daunting enough. Parents who can afford piano lessons do that and call it good enough, and those who can't afford lessons satisfy the fine arts requirements with the musical equivalent of watching a sitcom. Many people survive just fine w/o a music education and even cry "sour grapes" at the thought that music is an academic pursuit, but our culture is less rich for it. .02:001_smile:

[Mallory]

I regularly use the phone book in the alphabetizing part of our schooling.

 

Doesn't everyone?

Edited November 17, 2010 by Mallory
maybe I need to regularly use the dictionary as a part of my posting

[Tabrett]

I know this is off-topic, but :thumbup1:

 

Tabrett, when you write this curriculum, will you PM me?

:)

 

Sure!:lol::lol:

 

Someone needs to do it, I guess it should be ME! I will have to am for our 3yr olds. I have already taught the others how to read. But wouldn't it be cool if the Bible stories were replaced with the Waldorf stories to teach phonics with the block crayon drawings? The Biblical feast were taught as the celebrations? Bible verses were used to start the day instead of the poems used in Waldorf. I could see it very doable, but man, it would take A LOT of creativity. Maybe we could do it as a team.:D

 

I have seen a wet-on-wet water color on book on Amazon that teaches the creation story, but it was for much older students (I think 10 and up).

 

Sometimes I become very irritated at how "cartooned" the Bible stories are drawn and how "flashy" all the Christian toys are made.

 

I still wouldn't start the Ancients until later like in HOD. I think Biblical foundation needs to come first.

[2_girls_mommy]

If you follow TWTM, you will find that many resources suggested are not part of a classical curriculum. For example: Rod & Staff is NOT a classical curriculum. But many classical hs'er use their grammar because it is one of the best. But I would stay clear of R&S's history and science!

__________________

 

 

 

I was thinking this when I read the original question. And I am a big R&S fan. But the science and social studies are not classical by any means. I find that the math really is, and many agree. And the grammar and phonics work well for us, and we are even finding the spelling workbooks to fit right in w/our classical studies.

 

But I would say that buying R&S as a full grade level curric, school in a box type thing would not be classical. You have to add that aspect to the program. Or more precisely, we use parts of R&S as a part of our Classical studies.

 

For those who are grappling w/the no workbooks thing. I don't think anyone means don't use workbooks for anything. It means don't hand a kid a workbook for science and social studies and reading that has a read a paragraph, then fill in the blank or mix and match format.... We follow WTM as our guideline, and they suggest many programs that integrate a workbook of some kind.

Edited November 17, 2010 by 2_girls_mommy