What classical education is and why it is attractive

[LarrySanger]

A little educational philosophizing now.

 

"What classical education is and why it is attractive" is a huge subject and I haven't read enough, yet, to have that much of interest to say on it. But I did want to make a few observations.

 

As many people here know (I gather), the way that Dorothy Sayers, the Bauers, and a lot of the "classical education" movement use "trivium" simply does not match up with the classical usage. "Grammar" does not mean "early education memorization stage," it means the study of the mechanics of language. "Logic" does not mean "argumentative stage," it means the study of the nature and standards of good argumentation. "Rhetoric" does not mean "the stage at which students can put together their own original ideas persuasively," it means "the study and practice of communication, especially persuasive communication." For the ancients, they weren't stages at all, but subjects, three of the subjects that make up the seven liberal arts. If you didn't know all this already, look it up. Look up the meaning of "trivium" in some reliable source that describes the historical meaning, not the classical education movement meaning.

 

Now, don't get me wrong--I'm also sure that Sayers and the Bauers knew all this, and I don't mean this as a criticism, because actually, WTM is my favorite homeschooling book and the method we use is closest to what WTM describes.

 

Still, there is something ironic about trading on the solidity, ancient reputation, and tried-and-true-ness of "classical education," even to employ the terms, only to discover that they are being used in a new sense. So I have to wonder: am I attracted to WTM because it purports to have a classical approach, or on its own merits (which, perhaps, strike me as "classical" in some legitimate sense)?

 

To answer this, we need to examine the WTM approach. Here's how I understand the main features of the WTM approach, stripped of the jargon:

1. Students should begin in the early years by doing a lot of reading and memorization.

2. There is a focus on academic (theoretical, scientific, and historical) knowledge, as opposed to practical knowledge (of how to do things).

3. Some subjects, like history and science, are taught in four-year cycles. When one returns to them, one studies the same subjects in the same order, but at a higher level.

4. Those subjects are taught in a roughly hierarchical or historical order.

5. In literature and some other subjects, there is a focus on classics, both in the traditional sense and in the "great books" sense, as well as on historically important documents.

6. Latin is taught; Greek is encouraged.

7. Logic and traditional grammar are both taught.

 

Am I leaving anything important out here? Probably. But for what it's worth, I happen to agree with every part of this. By the way, I think it goes without saying that one can't embrace 1-7 and let the students choose to learn whatever they want, Unschooling style; Unschooling in any meaningful sense almost certainly guarantees that none of 1-7 is accomplished.

 

Of these items, only 2, 6, and 7 are important parts of classical education in the sense of the medieval trivium & quadrivium. But I believe all seven (except, for all I know, 3) were important parts of the Western education tradition in approximately the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

Therefore I propose that the "classical education" movement is really misnamed. Really what WTM represents is a traditional approach--not a traditional 20th century approach, but a traditional 19th century homeschooling approach. Perhaps it would be best to call it a "traditional liberal arts home education." It is "traditional" because the methods of reading the classics, memorization, oral examination/narration, teaching the mechanics of writing and thought in the form of grammar and logic, etc., are traditional methods. It is "liberal arts" not in the medieval sense but in the well-understood modern sense of the sciences, humanities, and arts. It is important to add the word "home" because what we are doing is very different from what schooled children did at bigger schools in the 19th century--children who were made to study the same things at the same times, often under strict and miserable discipline.

 

Why is this attractive? I will answer only for myself. I think a liberal arts education is the best way to make a person into a well-informed and subtle thinker. This is important both because such people are needed to develop and run the machinery of 21st century civilization, but for the more timeless reason that the world is a terrifically complicated place; one simply can't make sense of it, and be at all rationally confident of one's way of life or world view, unless one has studied the world in the abstract and in historical detail, and one has been trained to think and write about it systematically.

 

I reject Unschooling wholeheartedly because that approach, while it might train children in subjects and skills they are interested in, it is bound to leave them with significant gaps in their intellectual training. That's because hardly any student will just happen to choose to do everything that is required of a liberal education.

 

I also reject most 21st century public and private schooling because, while it is possible for a diligent student to learn a lot, he or she will simply spend too much time on busywork and unnecessary tasks to be able to get a really robust liberal arts education. In fact, the only way such most schooled students can be thoroughly practiced in the liberal arts is if they go to college and get a liberal arts (rather than a technical) education there. This is the root reason why so many kids go to college now: primary & secondary schooling doesn't provide them an adequate education, and the demands of the modern world really require that they be better educated. Sadly, society has become so anti-intellectual that there are demands to dismantle liberal arts programs in colleges and to make them into technical training centers even more than they already are.

[8filltheheart]

These pts have been discussed before. I couldn't find many of them in a quick search, but this recent one came up:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324820&highlight=classical

 

Search for threads where Ester Maria posts on her views of classical education. Her posts are always quite enlightening.

 

We are unabashedly Catholic, so I don't know if these links would appeal to you or not, but I have always enjoyed reading educational philosophy, so I thought I'd share them anyway b/c I love the Jesuit philosophy of education.

 

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

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12654a.htm

 

I tried to find active links on the 4 pedagogy's of a Jesuit Education (Foaur hallmarks of Jesuit pedagogy: Prelection, reflection, active learning, repetition) b/c as a homeschooler I find prelection is the most important practice I must achieve to be a successful teacher, but all of the links I found are no longer active. You might be able to find info just searching the term prelection.

 

(ETA: I just tried the wayback machine and found the article if you are interested: http://web.archive.org/web/20100414225419/http://school.jhssac.org/faculty/cheneym/documents/Section_13__FOUR_HALLMARKS_OF_JESUIT_EDUCATION.pdf )

Edited January 27, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[Beth in SW WA]

I also reject most 21st century public and private schooling because, while it is possible for a diligent student to learn a lot, he or she will simply spend too much time on busywork and unnecessary tasks to be able to get a really robust liberal arts education.

 

Are you speaking from first-hand experience? Do you have close friends/family in public or private high schools?

 

I respectfully disagree based on the experience of my two older dc. They attend a private high school and are receiving a fantastic education. Ds just received an A in college alg as a 16-year-old. Both my dc read novels, short stories, poetry, etc. They write. They study history & science. Dd is researching the French Revolution for her National History Day project. I don't consider any of this 'busy work' as you implied. I actually wish more time was spent on STEM subjects -- rather than the liberal arts aspect of their education.

 

I don't want a pure classical education for my dc. The math and science is often week in classical schools/homeschools (not on these boards, of course). Roxbury Latin and other similar schools knock it out of the park. They can have it both ways -- for a price. :)

 

I am rethinking classical ed for my youngers also.

 

We have dear teen/young adult friends who have received top-notch educations in public high schools locally in the IB program. Others take AP classes. Busy work? I think not.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Beth in SW WA
clarify

[LarrySanger]

Beth--I'm sorry, but I think it's misplaced to demand credentials in a polite conversation. Don't you? I don't think claims and counter-claims of credentials usually establish anything interesting, especially on the rather vague questions we are discussing. So although I could, I will not attempt to impress you with my credentials.

 

I was speaking in generalities, and you seem to take me to be saying that it is impossible to get a good education at private and public schools. Of course I wouldn't say it's impossible. Of course there are some good private schools. Even some public ones. There are also plenty of excellent teachers and programs within schools. I'm not saying that a diligent student taking honors and AP classes at an average school won't be reasonably well educated, or as well as can be expected under the circumstances. What I'm saying is that at most schools, they simply won't learn nearly as much as they would if they were homeschooled under a good classical approach. A lot of the work done, or time spent, in public schools is spent inefficiently. Students are frequently drilled on what they already know--to make sure their peers are caught up--they are not challenged. Sometimes a student falls behind, too, and the extra help they would get at home just doesn't happen at school.

 

The bottom line is that, I think, a lot of people just don't care about knowledge, and this sad attitude is reflected deeply in our public schools.

 

As ordinarily used in colleges today, the liberal arts includes science and math.

Edited January 28, 2012 by LarrySanger

[justamouse]

Have you read Climbing Parnassus? I think you might like that one.

 

 

And, Beauty for Truth's Sake ( by a Catholic author) is on my list, recommended by another WTM mom.

 

 

Darn, I just found The Trivium, too, that one looks good. :glare: Cause all I need is another book.

Edited January 28, 2012 by justamouse

[8filltheheart]

 

Darn, I just found The Trivium,

 

I read Sister's book yrs ago. Hmmmm, I don't have clear memories of it. I might have to pull it out again. (all I need is another book to read. :tongue_smilie:)

[justamouse]

I read Sister's book yrs ago. Hmmmm, I don't have clear memories of it. I might have to pull it out again. (all I need is another book to read. :tongue_smilie:)

 

You have it on your shelf? Man, I'm so jealous. :D

[LarrySanger]

Have you read Climbing Parnassus? I think you might like that one.

 

And, Beauty for Truth's Sake ( by a Catholic author) is on my list, recommended by another WTM mom.

 

Darn, I just found The Trivium, too, that one looks good. :glare: Cause all I need is another book.

Thanks for the recommendations!

 

Climbing Parnassus has been on my wish list for a while...the others, well, they look awfully Catholic for my tastes. I mean, I'm sure they'd be interesting, if I had time...

[Beth in SW WA]

Beth--I'm sorry, but I think it's misplaced to demand credentials in a polite conversation. Don't you? I don't think claims and counter-claims of credentials usually establish anything interesting, especially on the rather vague questions we are discussing. So although I could, I will not attempt to impress you with my credentials.

 

Credentials? :confused:

I was probing as to your first-hand experience in a public/private high school in the '21st century' (per your statement).

 

I was speaking in generalities, and you seem to take me to be saying that it is impossible to get a good education at private and public schools. Of course I wouldn't say it's impossible. Of course there are some good private schools. Even some public ones. There are also plenty of excellent teachers and programs within schools. I'm not saying that a diligent student taking honors and AP classes at an average school won't be reasonably well educated, or as well as can be expected under the circumstances.

 

That's a relief. Because I know plenty of extremely well-educated students in college now who did amazingly well at local public and private high schools.

 

 

I am not impressed with many local homeschoolers, classical or otherwise.

[justamouse]

 

(ETA: I just tried the wayback machine and found the article if you are interested: http://web.archive.org/web/20100414225419/http://school.jhssac.org/faculty/cheneym/documents/Section_13__FOUR_HALLMARKS_OF_JESUIT_EDUCATION.pdf )

 

 

That is amazing. AMAZING. Thank you for taking the time to look it up.

[justamouse]

Thanks for the recommendations!

 

Climbing Parnassus has been on my wish list for a while...the others, well, they look awfully Catholic for my tastes. I mean, I'm sure they'd be interesting, if I had time...

 

S'ok, I knew they were pretty heavy Catholic, but I think you'll really enjoy Climbing Parnassus. The others look to be more about Liberal Arts as a whole, though.

 

Your anti intellectualism blog post is pretty dead on accurate, I think. Thumbs up.

[8filltheheart]

That is amazing. AMAZING. Thank you for taking the time to look it up.

 

I think that link is valuable to any teacher. While is Catholic and the underlying premise is the Spiritual Exercises, the methodology is applicable to teaching any subject.

 

FWIW, I sent the link to Sahamama b/c after including it here, I realized that it was really more applicable to her thread and what makes a great teacher. I have learned so much about how to teach from the Jesuits. FWIW, I have taken the concept of prelection and modified it for what works for me. The biggest difference is that I use the concept of prelection on myself before I generate my kids assignments.....that helps me make sure my objectives are clear.

[ladydusk]

Have you read Climbing Parnassus? I think you might like that one.

 

 

And, Beauty for Truth's Sake ( by a Catholic author) is on my list, recommended by another WTM mom.

 

 

Darn, I just found The Trivium, too, that one looks good. :glare: Cause all I need is another book.

 

I've failed at Climbing Parnassus a few times, but I read Beauty for Truth's Sake last year and was very encouraged by it to think about Math with a Christian perspective, to consider how math shows God's character. I'm a Reformed Presbyterian (OPC), so about the exact opposite of Roman Catholic, and while Caldwell quotes Popes and other Catholic thinkers, I didn't think it was too Catholic. Caldwell keeps a blog, and I enjoy reading it, Beauty in Education.

 

Here's my reveiw of Beauty for Truth's Sake.

[bpskowski]

I'm not really sure what to say in response except that your "philosophizing" makes one think. I certainly agree to the naming of "classical" education being off target. I did my own exploring and research back when I first came across the WTM. So call it whatever you want. Tell us your new name. Maybe it will stick. It's the method that resonates with me.

 

As for the public and private schools not being able to provide "insert new name" education, I would mostly agree. But, I am sure there are many exceptions as Beth in SW WA has pointed out. But, I also think it all comes back to the individual. My son, like me is an introvert. When he was at a Montessori preschool and kindergarten he expended so much energy in just protecting himself mentally from the deluge of information coming in, he was unable to learn. It wasn't until I was able to observe him, that I was able to realize how public school failed me. And how college failed me as well.

 

You say society has become so anti-intellectual and I agree. But I think that most people (the anti intellectuals) don't live by a single coherent philosophy. They allow themselves to bounced around by the latest head line.

 

But I do love this board, it's a great spring board. But you got to take all these fabulous ideas floating around here and align them with your own philosophy and do the best you can for your children.

 

PS I love watchknowlearn.org

[PeterPan]

It sounds like you're trying to formulate your own theory or philosophy of education, which is of course an important step. The interesting thing that happens though, as you go from a newbie with a 5 yo to a veteran with many years under your belt, kids out of school (not me yet obviously), etc. is that you find yourself to have MOVED from theory to reality. Reality is the needs of your kids will outweigh ANY of your theories. Reality is you're going to meet a bunch of people on these boards who've blended successfully some of the things you managed to slam. And reality is there are a lot of ways to use WTM. We have a lot of commonalities on this board, even when we have differences in implementation, because we have a seriousness about wanting to do a good job and find the WTM useful as a way of seeing components of that, steps. But how it plays out with different students is going to differ DRAMATICALLY.

 

Case in point? I can think of multiple "unschoolers" on this board or people who sort of classically unschool. I know an unschooled (IRL) who uses so many things popular on the WTM boards that I always hit her table first at sales. I joke that she's so brilliant she can do classical without a text. Me, I need a little more help. :)

 

So yeah, just chill out and enjoy the ride. Don't forget to look at your kids and have fun. If you get thrown a cure ball with your kids (SN, whatever), your theory is gonna go right out the window. Then you're going to have to distill it down to what *you* value most and what you can realistically make happen, not what someone else says. ;)

[Beth in SW WA]

I know an unschooled (IRL) who uses so many things popular on the WTM boards that I always hit her table first at sales. I joke that she's so brilliant she can do classical without a text. Me, I need a little more help. :)

 

 

We attended a science class at OMSI this week and I was blown away by the science knowledge of the kids from the Portland Unschoolers group. Those kids were brilliant. Try telling their parents that classical is the only way. They would laugh you out of the room.

[Bluegoat]

Reading through the posts I have several thoughts:

 

I don't think a classical education has anything really to do with a four year history cycle or necessarily a history cycle at all, and I don't think it is really about the Trivium, or about attaching stages of learning to the trivium.

 

Classical education is the study of the Western tradition of philosophy, literature, and history. Typically it has been done in an organized and logical way, and that kind of structure is a pretty fundamental component of the classical tradition with its origins in Greece and Rome.

 

The Trivium is a particular medieval way of organizing that tradition, the idea of corresponding it to learning stages is a particular 20th century way (which should be no surprise since the 20th century is where we see this flurry of psychological and social studies that it is based on.)

 

I don't think the classical approach makes sense in every context - there is no reason a school in Kenya or Tibet needs to be teaching primarily in the Western tradition. It makes sense for Westerners because we are products of that tradition, and it gives us the lenses we use to see the world. We can examine those lenses and wear them consciously or unconsciously, but only in the former case will we be really educated and able to look at other traditions with some real clarity. But the opposite is true from those who come from other traditions.

 

I do not think it is the case that children can only be best educated at home. It is often the case that no schools that would be better are available or affordable, and some students have challenges that make it the best choice. But many parents who are homeschoolers feel the need to outsource to some extent at high school and even middle school ages for a good reason - their children begin to outstrip their knowledge and ability in some subjects and having a good teacher really can be a great benefit in many cases over self-study alone.

 

I'd also like to say that while it seems to be the case that some classical schools may not be as rigorous in math and science, that is a complicated issue. Math and science are part of the Western tradition - they should be rigorously included. Sometimes they are neglected I suspect in programs run primarily by liberal arts people who haven't got a feel for them. On the other hand, one could argue, and I would, that one really can't be well educated in math and science without understanding their historical and philosophical foundations - many science students in universities have no real idea what science actually is in a meaningful way, and that is the basis of any rigorous study of a subject and it is the way we know what to think about what information that subject gives us.

 

All of which is to say, I don't know that sacrificing a good liberal arts education for more math and science is necessarily wise either. How much more "rigorous" the program is would be an important question.

[kristinannie]

I love a lot of what SWB says in TWTM, but I do agree that it doesn't really get to the heart of classical education (in the way that the ancients saw it). I would really read Climbing Parnassus. It has an excellent chapter on "classical" education throughout the centuries. While I am not going to beat my kids for not reciting their Latin perfectly, I do really love the kind of education that he espouses. I am not a Greek and Latin expert, but I am studying the languages to help me out.

 

You might also like Latin Centered Curriculum by Memoria Press. I haven't purchase this yet so I can't really give you an example. I also really enjoyed Trivium Mastery. It really shows how the different stages of current classical education really lose the heart of the ancient classical education.

[justamouse]

I think that link is valuable to any teacher. While is Catholic and the underlying premise is the Spiritual Exercises, the methodology is applicable to teaching any subject.

 

FWIW, I sent the link to Sahamama b/c after including it here, I realized that it was really more applicable to her thread and what makes a great teacher. I have learned so much about how to teach from the Jesuits. FWIW, I have taken the concept of prelection and modified it for what works for me. The biggest difference is that I use the concept of prelection on myself before I generate my kids assignments.....that helps me make sure my objectives are clear.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking of using it for.

 

I've failed at Climbing Parnassus a few times, but I read Beauty for Truth's Sake last year and was very encouraged by it to think about Math with a Christian perspective, to consider how math shows God's character. I'm a Reformed Presbyterian (OPC), so about the exact opposite of Roman Catholic, and while Caldwell quotes Popes and other Catholic thinkers, I didn't think it was too Catholic. Caldwell keeps a blog, and I enjoy reading it, Beauty in Education.

 

Here's my reveiw of Beauty for Truth's Sake.

 

Thanks, I appreciate the links!

 

Funny, Caldwell had a link to The Classic Trivium by Marshall McLuhan on his blog. ('nuther Catholic, Larry, sorry!)

Edited January 28, 2012 by justamouse

[kristinannie]

That's exactly what I was thinking of using it for.

 

 

 

Thanks, I appreciate the links!

 

Funny, Caldwell had a link to The Classic Trivium by Marshall McLuhan on his blog. ('nuther Catholic, Larry, sorry!)

 

 

 

Have you read this? It looks great, but the price tag is a little high! :scared:

[quark]

It sounds like you're trying to formulate your own theory or philosophy of education, which is of course an important step. The interesting thing that happens though, as you go from a newbie with a 5 yo to a veteran with many years under your belt, kids out of school (not me yet obviously), etc. is that you find yourself to have MOVED from theory to reality. Reality is the needs of your kids will outweigh ANY of your theories. Reality is you're going to meet a bunch of people on these boards who've blended successfully some of the things you managed to slam. And reality is there are a lot of ways to use WTM. We have a lot of commonalities on this board, even when we have differences in implementation, because we have a seriousness about wanting to do a good job and find the WTM useful as a way of seeing components of that, steps. But how it plays out with different students is going to differ DRAMATICALLY.

 

Case in point? I can think of multiple "unschoolers" on this board or people who sort of classically unschool. I know an unschooled (IRL) who uses so many things popular on the WTM boards that I always hit her table first at sales. I joke that she's so brilliant she can do classical without a text. Me, I need a little more help. :)

 

So yeah, just chill out and enjoy the ride. Don't forget to look at your kids and have fun. If you get thrown a cure ball with your kids (SN, whatever), your theory is gonna go right out the window. Then you're going to have to distill it down to what *you* value most and what you can realistically make happen, not what someone else says. ;)

 

I was wondering if I had 10 more minutes today to finish reading this thread. So glad I did. OhE, this is so dead-on, spot-on, beautifully accurate!

[prairiegirl]

It sounds like you're trying to formulate your own theory or philosophy of education, which is of course an important step. The interesting thing that happens though, as you go from a newbie with a 5 yo to a veteran with many years under your belt, kids out of school (not me yet obviously), etc. is that you find yourself to have MOVED from theory to reality. Reality is the needs of your kids will outweigh ANY of your theories. ;)

 

:iagree: This was me 7 yrs ago. I had read WTM and other CE books and I knew exactly what CE was and I knew exactly how I was going to give my dd (then 5) a classical education. It was all going to go swimmingly perfect.

 

Then real life happened. I started to teach my 'smart little cookie' and it became apparent that she had some learning issues. Hmmm, what do you do about that and how does that fit into CE? Then I started to teach my other two 'smart cookies' and they had the same learning challenges but on a more severe level. This brings me to the present where I am just lucky if I can get through the day without drowning. I don't care anymore if what you can call what we do a Classical Education (although deep down I know that it isn't) I am just struggling to get these kids to learn on their own.

 

I have read many more books on CE and have come to the conclusion that I know far less about it than I did when I started out full of confidence and, yes, arrogance.

[justamouse]

From looking at Larry's blog, he's pretty well edumacated. ;) I think he'll adapt a CE that suits himself and child, and get along just swimmingly.

[LarrySanger]

It sounds like you're trying to formulate your own theory or philosophy of education, which is of course an important step. The interesting thing that happens though, as you go from a newbie with a 5 yo to a veteran with many years under your belt, kids out of school (not me yet obviously), etc. is that you find yourself to have MOVED from theory to reality. Reality is the needs of your kids will outweigh ANY of your theories. Reality is you're going to meet a bunch of people on these boards who've blended successfully some of the things you managed to slam. And reality is there are a lot of ways to use WTM. We have a lot of commonalities on this board, even when we have differences in implementation, because we have a seriousness about wanting to do a good job and find the WTM useful as a way of seeing components of that, steps. But how it plays out with different students is going to differ DRAMATICALLY.

 

Case in point? I can think of multiple "unschoolers" on this board or people who sort of classically unschool. I know an unschooled (IRL) who uses so many things popular on the WTM boards that I always hit her table first at sales. I joke that she's so brilliant she can do classical without a text. Me, I need a little more help. :)

 

So yeah, just chill out and enjoy the ride. Don't forget to look at your kids and have fun. If you get thrown a cure ball with your kids (SN, whatever), your theory is gonna go right out the window. Then you're going to have to distill it down to what *you* value most and what you can realistically make happen, not what someone else says. ;)

 

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but this sounds quite condescending and disrespectful. Unfortunately, you didn't understand what I was trying to do. If I had written as though I had the answers on practical questions of how to homeschool, then yeah--I should feel duly chastised. I believe that what you, and others commenting here, are doing is basically projecting your own past experiences with educational theorizing on to me.

 

But what I was doing, instead, was trying to articulate a few tentative thoughts on general issues. I have been theorizing about education since I was a graduate student in philosophy in the early 1990s. When a philosopher writes philosophy, it is often not meant as a definite or especially practical proposal. It is meant as an attempt to understand general or abstract issues. So it is obvious to me, from the get-go, that how general claims might need to be applied is very much up in the air. If you will look at my contributions on this forum so far, you will see that I'm seeking answers and help on plenty of practical issues. I don't think I have all the answers. As a skeptically-inclined philosopher, I know I don't have them. Still, which of the many options I choose is often informed, to some extent, by my general views on education, its aims and methods. And just as much, when I go to formulate my general views on education, as I do in this blog post from today, I am often making very broad generalizations based on how I've observed things go with my son.

 

On unschooling, your point isn't clear. If you're saying that people combine an unschooling approach with a classical approach, well, I already knew that some people do that, and I'm surprised if you think I wouldn't have figured that out. I'm not judging any particular homeschooling family--doing that would require careful examination of circumstances. See the above link for some still-brief but more nuanced thoughts on unschooling.

 

As to examining my child and tailoring his education to his needs--well, you don't know me, so I'll tell you a few things. I have written somewhere north of 150,000 words just for my personal consumption over the last five years or so--since I started systematically teaching and studying how to teach my son before he was one. I am constantly thinking about how he's doing, what works, what isn't working, and so forth. I constantly go back and forth from the ridiculously general to the extremely practical/narrow. Of course, I've read lots of books and talked to a lot of people, especially about early education. I've been very much blessed with the time to think about all this stuff. I appreciate that others often lack the time or inclination for this sort of thing. For me, it's fascinating and my main hobby.

 

If my child had a serious learning disability, I would go to work studying that, and of course tailor our approach to his needs. Whether this would involve giving up classical approach, that depends on how you define "classical," I'm sure. General theories, if well formulated, are not apt to go to the window.

Edited January 29, 2012 by LarrySanger

[8filltheheart]

FWIW, I didn't read your post as having all the answers, but more as a conversation starter for the opportunity for more reflection. Since it is an issue that has been discussed a lot, sometimes it just takes too much time and energy to do it again. ;) (these boards have existed for ages, the old boards in a different format. I can't remember when I started posting, but I think it was sometime around when my oldest was in 7th grade. He is now a college graduate, married, and a daddy. :) ) The reception of the conversation simply depends upon who the readers are on the board at that particular time.

 

The biggest thing I have learned over time is that in our household homeschooling is radically different from school at home--no matter what methodology/philosophy that school is based upon (classical included.) However, my core philosophy is pretty much still the same. I see my methodologies as adaptable w/o necessarily corrupting my whys/whats.

Edited January 29, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[Ester Maria]

Larry,

 

there is a tendency on these boards for most discussions, even if started as discussions of principles, to ultimately turn "pragmatical". Even if you start a discussion in a purely speculative, theoretical vein, it is almost bound to end up a discussion of what concrete people are doing with concrete children, and why.

 

It does get frustrating sometimes. :tongue_smilie: I was bewildered for a while before I figured out - after people constantly confronted me over "but, with my child..." and "but, if you had a different child, you could not reason this way..." while I was banging my head against a wall trying to explain that I was attempting to talk about principles and values - that it is simply how things happen to naturally evolve here. There are very few "theoretical" discussions on here, of the kind you seem to have wished to start, because people inevitably begin to insert their own experiences until the discussion completely shifts to pragmatic matters and, as regards that, ends with a customary "to each their own".

 

Just warning you about a trend - whenever you write pure theory, expect to be "attacked" in some way by people to whose own experience or to whose children your theory or segments of it could not apply and those people will typically not remain at philosophical disagreements, but drag it onto the pragmatical level, especially if it is a source of a kind of a personal baggage for them (NOT alluding specifically to Elizabeth here, simply thinking about some of my own failed attempts at having discussions which are more rooted in principles than in issues associated with their implementation with my or other children).

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ester Maria

[justamouse]

Larry,

 

there is a tendency on these boards for most discussions, even if started as discussions of principles, to ultimately turn "pragmatical". Even if you start a discussion in a purely speculative, theoretical vein, it is almost bound to end up a discussion of what concrete people are doing with concrete children, and why.

 

It does get frustrating sometimes. :tongue_smilie: I was bewildered for a while before I figured out - after people constantly confronted me over "but, with my child..." and "but, if you had a different child, you could not reason this way..." while I was banging my head against a wall trying to explain that I was attempting to talk about principles - that it is simply how things happen to naturally evolve here. There are very few "theoretical" discussions on here, of the kind you seem to have wished to start, because people inevitably begin to insert their own experiences until the discussion completely shifts to pragmatic matters and, as regards that, ends with a customary "to each their own".

 

Just warning you about a trend - whenever you write pure theory, expect to be "attacked" in some way by people to whose children your theory could not apply and those people will typically not remain at philosophical disagreements, but drag it onto the pragmatical level, especially if it is a source of a kind of a personal baggage for them (NOT alluding specifically to Elizabeth here, simply thinking about some of my own failed attempts at having discussions which are more rooted in principles than in issues associated with their implementation with my or other children).

 

Remember that gargantuan thread on how all schools should teach the Classics so that all US Citizens could have a Liberal Arts Ed and be a part of Western Civilization?

 

Man, you were eviscerated on that thread.

 

I still think it's the right way to go, and as each year goes by, I'm more convinced of it.

 

Larry, as each year goes by, I turn to an even more classical approach than TWTM. I am doing it myself, I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of how to other than what I can learn. Why? Because it seems that ignorance is getting deeper, as people's knowledge is more fragmented. I despise the post modern theories on schooling. I think they will be the coup de grace on what is left of our education system if left unchecked. And, I have little hope, because after reading Marva Collins' Way, I realized we have already been fighting these fights for so long with no improvement, my only contribution to the salvation of this country's future is to teach my kids myself.

Edited January 29, 2012 by justamouse

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Remember that gargantuan thread on how all schools should teach the Classics so that all US Citizens could have a Liberal Arts Ed and be a part of Western Civilization?

 

Man, you were eviscerated on that thread.

 

I still think it's the right way to go, and as each year goes by, I'm more convinced of it.

 

Have you a link? :lurk5:

 

LarrySanger, some of us live to read about (and discuss) pedagogy and philosophy. I'm sorry I haven't noticed your threads on these topics before. (I'm not as conversant as everybody else but I do my part bumping the smart threads.)

 

The Eye of the Hive is upon you now, so I hope you'll have lots of fun and great discussions here. Your voice is very welcome.

[Bluegoat]

Larry,

 

there is a tendency on these boards for most discussions, even if started as discussions of principles, to ultimately turn "pragmatical". Even if you start a discussion in a purely speculative, theoretical vein, it is almost bound to end up a discussion of what concrete people are doing with concrete children, and why.

 

It does get frustrating sometimes. :tongue_smilie: I was bewildered for a while before I figured out, after people constantly confronted me over "but, with my child..." and "but, if you had a different child, you could not reason this way..." while I was banging my head against a wall trying to explain that I was attempting to talk about principles, that it is simply how things happen to naturally evolve here. There are very few "theoretical" discussions on here, of the kind you seem to have wished to start, because people inevitably begin to insert their own experiences until the discussion completely shifts to pragmatic matters and, as regards that, ends with a customary "to teach their own".

 

Just warning you about a trend - whenever you write pure theory, expect to be "attacked" in some way by people to whose children your theory could not apply and those people will typically not remain at philosophical disagreements, but drag it onto the pragmatical level, especially if it is a source of a kind of a personal baggage for them (NOT alluding specifically to Elizabeth here, simply thinking about some of my own failed attempts at having discussions which are more rooted in principles than in issues associated with their implementation with my or other children).

 

I suspect that is because most people derive principles largely through experience, and often will use their experience as a way of demonstrating a principle.

 

I mean, of you say in principle such and such is true about a classical education, but it is not in fact born out in people's experiences, it may be because the principle is wrong or incomplete. It may be of course that they are not really thinking about how the principle would be born out in different kinds of situation.

 

I mean, I think to say that in principle a child will always be better educated in a home environment is a good example of this, or that private school will fail because of busywork simply isn't true at the level of a principle.

 

In any case, I find that with people who are more concrete than I am - that is almost everyone - I have to translate what they say into a more abstract kind of format and often it helps to translate myself to the concrete for them on some points.

[Ester Maria]

Have you a link? :lurk5:

Let's not. :tongue_smilie:

[LarrySanger]

Larry,

 

there is a tendency on these boards for most discussions, even if started as discussions of principles, to ultimately turn "pragmatical". Even if you start a discussion in a purely speculative, theoretical vein, it is almost bound to end up a discussion of what concrete people are doing with concrete children, and why.

 

Thanks! Now I know!

[LarrySanger]

Have you a link? :lurk5:

LarrySanger, some of us live to read about (and discuss) pedagogy and philosophy. I'm sorry I haven't noticed your threads on these topics before. (I'm not as conversant as everybody else but I do my part bumping the smart threads.)

 

The Eye of the Hive is upon you now, so I hope you'll have lots of fun and great discussions here. Your voice is very welcome.

 

Thank you, Tibbie! Well, I'd love to have feedback on today's blog post, "Efficiency as a basic educational principle," which is very much along the lines of what I started in post #1 in this thread. Here is the principle in question: "Seize every opportunity to help the individual student to learn efficiently–which occurs when the student is interested in something not yet learned but is capable of learning it, and especially when learning it makes it easier to learn more later."

 

Using this I explain why I come down where I do on often-controversial educational issues, which I have explained elsewhere, such as on my blog:

 

1. Very early learning, by certain methods, is efficient learning.

2. Homeschooling’s main advantage is its efficiency.

3. Unschooling, or at least “radical†unschooling, is often inefficient.

4. Memorizing some facts is efficient.

5. Reading many carefully-chosen, well-written books is an efficient way to learn.

6. Incorporating illustrative multimedia to supplement reading is efficient.

7. Learning the texts of Western civilization is efficient.

8. Grounded in enough reading, it is much more efficient to write a lot than to do “language arts†workbooks.

9. Ed tech’s main appeal is its efficiency. When inefficient, it sucks.

10. The project method is inefficient.

11. Many textbooks are inefficient.

 

The details are in the post.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Thank you, Tibbie! Well, I'd love to have feedback on today's blog post, "Efficiency as a basic educational principle," which is very much along the lines of what I started in post #1 in this thread. Here is the principle in question: "Seize every opportunity to help the individual student to learn efficiently–which occurs when the student is interested in something not yet learned but is capable of learning it, and especially when learning it makes it easier to learn more later."

 

Using this I explain why I come down where I do on often-controversial educational issues, which I have explained elsewhere, such as on my blog:

 

1. Very early learning, by certain methods, is efficient learning.

2. Homeschooling’s main advantage is its efficiency.

3. Unschooling, or at least “radical†unschooling, is often inefficient.

4. Memorizing some facts is efficient.

5. Reading many carefully-chosen, well-written books is an efficient way to learn.

6. Incorporating illustrative multimedia to supplement reading is efficient.

7. Learning the texts of Western civilization is efficient.

8. Grounded in enough reading, it is much more efficient to write a lot than to do “language arts†workbooks.

9. Ed tech’s main appeal is its efficiency. When inefficient, it sucks.

10. The project method is inefficient.

11. Many textbooks are inefficient.

 

The details are in the post.

 

At first glance, all eleven points have been validated in my homeschooling experience. (Four sons, currently grades 1-9) Most are also in agreement with my understanding of the basic tenets of classical education.

 

I am curious about your definition of 'illustrative multimedia in #6. Are you thinking of utilizing audio-visual/technical media? Or does this refer to flashcards, illustrated picture books, and the like? Are we talking Starfall programs and Ipad Apps or All About Spelling tiles and Orton-Gillingham flashcards? I used neither form in teaching my boys to read. I mainly used Webster's Speller and McGuffey Readers! But learning to read was effortless for all of my children. I know the new generation of homeschoolers are using the new tools to good effect with their children.

 

My favorite authority on classical education, Charlotte Mason, would be in complete agreement with your #4 (memorizing some facts), #5 (emphasis on well-written works, even for the youngest students), #7 (familiarity with the Western canon), #8 (actual writing, generated entirely by the student, instead of workbooks that do all the thinking for him), #10 (there is a place for projects and unit studies, but they are not necessary and sometimes hinder true concentration), and #11 (textbooks are inefficient; living books work).

 

I glanced at the blog post and look forward to reading it tomorrow when I have time to digest it, but I couldn't help noticing the comments. Made me laugh! We'll all have to watch our step, I think!

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I just re-read the OP and can't believe how distracted I was by the ensuing posts! Sheesh.

 

Now that I see the point of the thread, I really must get on the Climbing Parnassus bandwagon. Whatever his perspective, he spends considerable time delineating the differences between ancient classical education and what some are calling 'neo-classical' homeschooling. He lists all fifty'leven ways that we miss the boat.

 

He irritated the snot out of me. In my opinion, if you look up 'elitist' in the dictionary you will find a photo of Tracy Lee Simmons.

 

Still, I loved him for caring. I loved him for sharing his experiences and knowledge in a way that this lowly homeschool Mom could understand. And I have to concede that he certainly counted the SWB/Sayer approach to be better than nothing and miles ahead of what is going on in public schools today. If that's all we can do, it is very, very good to do it.

 

Edited to add a link to a recent video. Here is Tracy Lee Simmons, speaking at Highlands Latin School in Kentucky.

The Latin-Centered Curriculum also addresses these differences. I wish I knew where to find the old threads where Susan Wise Bauer and Drew Campbell, who was actually a member of these forums, duked it out over which of them had the wrong end of the stick. That was fascinating.

 

In my very humble opinion, the neo-classical method is more the answer for our modern problems. The older way mostly prepares kids to be college professors, I think. The new way prepares kids to be ahead of the pack as thinkers, problem solvers, and keepers of the values and information of the West. I'm seeing it in my own teens already. The same mind that learns to read with phonics, diagrams sentences in English at age 7 and in Latin at age 11, can also be the first in a group to understand a schematic or an instruction manual. It is astounding. They really are superior thinkers, because their minds have been trained without distraction.

 

To be honest, my young Latin and Greek scholars have more in common with my blue-collar Grandpa who was able to build or repair anything in the world just by pausing to think for a minute. That common sense understanding of the world around him, down to the last detail, and the ability to spot a fake person or a fake nickel with equal facility...that is what we've lost in this nation. Old-fashioned, efficient, and effective common sense. Can it be taught? I believe so.

 

I can't put my boys back on the sharecropper's land or have them run trap lines before school. I can't put them into the Engineer Corps of the Army during WWII, or sign them up to run the newest construction equipment when America's modern infrastructure was built. That was Grandpa's life, and he could do it.

 

I can help my boys develop their minds through a certain type of academic study, and a certain approach to math, science, and hands-on skills. I'm seeing the fruit of this already as my teens go out into the world, and I'm doing a better job with my youngest children now that I know what can happen in the next ten years if I'm diligent.

 

So yes, I believe that there are astoundingly efficient ways to teach children, and I believe the school people are doing the flat opposite at every single turn. Every forward step has been wrong. I wish we'd stop stepping forward, then, and look back to when we enjoyed success. Some things have been lost, but may yet be found if we could just find some humility.

 

And I have no idea why I've rambled on this way. Thankfully, this is the internet, and nobody is ever obliged to read anything.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Tibbie Dunbar

[justamouse]

I just re-read the OP and can't believe how distracted I was by the ensuing posts! Sheesh.

 

Now that I see the point of the thread, I really must get on the Climbing Parnassus bandwagon. Whatever his perspective, he spends considerable time delineating the differences between ancient classical education and what some are calling 'neo-classical' homeschooling. He lists all fifty'leven ways that we miss the boat.

 

He irritated the snot out of me. In my opinion, if you look up 'elitist' in the dictionary you will find a photo of Tracy Lee Simmons. (snerk)

 

Still, I loved him for caring. I loved him for sharing his experiences and knowledge in a way that this lowly homeschool Mom could understand. And I have to concede that he certainly counted the SWB/Sayer approach to be better than nothing and miles ahead of what is going on in public schools today. If that's all we can do, it is very, very good to do it.

 

Edited to add a link to a recent video. Here is Tracy Lee Simmons, speaking at Highlands Latin School in Kentucky.

The Latin-Centered Curriculum also addresses these differences. I wish I knew where to find the old threads where Susan Wise Bauer and Drew Campbell, who was actually a member of these forums, duked it out over which of them had the wrong end of the stick. That was fascinating.

 

Get out, really? I missed that. Darn it, I wish I could read those.

 

[snip]

 

To be honest, my young Latin and Greek scholars have more in common with my blue-collar Grandpa who was able to build or repair anything in the world just by pausing to think for a minute. That common sense understanding of the world around him, down to the last detail, and the ability to spot a fake person or a fake nickel with equal facility...that is what we've lost in this nation. Old-fashioned, efficient, and effective common sense. Can it be taught? I believe so.

 

This is it, right here. As a business owner, we've wanted to give our kinds what we can't find in employees. People who think.

 

But the part that the post modern educators forget is that great things happened before the internet. :tongue_smilie:Those people who did those great things were taught in a traditional manner. You don't need to fix it because it's boring.

[snip]

 

So yes, I believe that there are astoundingly efficient ways to teach children, and I believe the school people are doing the flat opposite at every single turn. Every forward step has been wrong. I wish we'd stop stepping forward, then, and look back to when we enjoyed success. Some things have been lost, but may yet be found if we could just find some humility.

 

And I have no idea why I've rambled on this way. Thankfully, this is the internet, and nobody is ever obliged to read anything.

 

great post, Tibbie. ;)

[quark]

nm

Edited January 29, 2012 by quark

[8filltheheart]

I read your blog. Interesting points. I agree whole-heartedly w/parts of it, especially the latter points.

 

Pragmatically speaking :D while creating individual education plans for children is vastly superior and efficient compared to one-size fits all classroom education, I don't think most moms would actually accept the premise that homeschooling itself is efficient. ;) Educating in the midst of "life" at home is incredibly inefficient.

 

The main area where I disagree with your efficiency contention, though, is actually #1. It actually takes MUCH longer to teach avg kids concepts at younger ages than if you simply wait. What you are witnessing w/your child learning and absorbing at a young age does not necessarily translate to the general population at large. Mental mile-markers in child development do exist. Decoding for reading (not sight reading) is on avg a 5 yr old skill. It is still completely w/in the normal range to not be able to decode until 6. It isn't a matter of being read to or instruction. It is the brain needing phonemic awareness. Living in home rich in language does not necessarily translate into a child that automatically has the phonemic awareness to read. It aids, but it is not a direct correlation. (and this isn't being pragmatic. This is from research and education. ;) Sight-reading is a different mental process than decoding. )

 

But experience has born out truth in the rest of your pts. :001_smile: I think you are on your way to having an incredible homeschooling journey w/your ds.

Edited January 29, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[justamouse]

note-if the Tracey Lee Simmons doesn't work though the Highlands site, click through to vimeo. It's flipping brilliant.

Edited January 29, 2012 by justamouse

[kristinannie]

note-if the Tracey Lee Simmons doesn't work though the Highlands site, click through to vimeo. It's flipping brilliant.

 

 

I just stayed up until 1am watching this! Thanks a lot!!! :tongue_smilie: It was an excellent talk. This is exactly why I want to do an authetic classical education with my kids.

[prairiegirl]

Grrr... :glare: I wrote out a long post and the computer ate it. I will attempt to write just the bullet points of the long-lost post.

 

I agree with most of your points that you made in your op, Larry, but I have issue with the words that you used. The word 'reject' is a strong word. You are rejecting philosophies/methods that work quite well for many here on the board and in the world. You are rejecting methods that many parents have given much thought to. They aren't using these methods out of ingorance. They chose these methods because they gave just as much thought as you did in choosing CE for your family. The tone of the post came across to me as arrogant.

 

I have read all of the books that have been mentioned in this thread. I would urge you (if you haven't already) to read Climbing Parnassus and Beauty for Truth's Sake (inspiring book.) Also, have you looked into The Circe Institute? They offer books and conference CDs that cause you to ponder long after the talk is over. But all of these books and words on philosophy and method do not trump real life. Experience costs more than all philosophical talk.

 

Fwiw, I agree with 8 on the two points of efficiency that do not ring true. Homeschooling may be efficient with a 5 yr. old but it is far from it when you have 3 all different ages and abilities. There is nothing efficient about that. Also, from my experience, teaching later is far more efficient and it leaves you with more hair.

[LarrySanger]

Tibbie, thanks for the responses.

 

I am curious about your definition of 'illustrative multimedia in #6. Are you thinking of utilizing audio-visual/technical media? Or does this refer to flashcards, illustrated picture books, and the like? Are we talking Starfall programs and Ipad Apps or All About Spelling tiles and Orton-Gillingham flashcards? I used neither form in teaching my boys to read. I mainly used Webster's Speller and McGuffey Readers! But learning to read was effortless for all of my children. I know the new generation of homeschoolers are using the new tools to good effect with their children.

 

Basically, I've discovered that we can really improve our grasp of and excitement about a text by looking at pictures of unfamiliar objects and places, watching videos of "action" stuff like waterfalls or battle re-enactments, and listening to examples of ethnic music (and other things, like peacock yelps). Since we can't usually go to the distant places and times of the things we're studying, or see objects we don't have in the house, this sort of multimedia is crucial to explaining meaning. I used to love the few pictures in our family's big fat Webster's dictionary when I was growing up. This is the same thing, only better--it helps teach concepts. I think it's of paramount importance that children routinely come to understand all the words (and place names, etc.) in a text.

 

Another thing we do is look up place names, even casual asides, on a globe, atlas, or iPad app. You'd think it often doesn't matter, but time and again I discover that things that I might have thought were unimportant turn out to be pretty big deals. I'll give you an example. We were reading a mediocre geography book (I bought this one before I became a connoisseur of these things) about Argentina, which mentioned that a certain town was in the Lake District of Argentina--as if the reader would know what that was, or would care. A better book would have spent at least a couple sentences explaining what the Lake District was and why it might matter. So we put down the book, looked at the atlas, and observed that indeed there were a lot of long lakes (like Scottish lochs) in the far south Andes, near the border of Argentina and Chile. We then used Google Maps or Earth (I forget which) to view a satellite image. I noticed glaciers there. Then we went back to the text and we were then much better able to understand what it was talking about when it referred to a certain national park. We looked up pictures of the national park on the iPad, and it showed some very common pix of South American glaciers, pix that my son and I had actually seen before, in other sources. So that's where that glacier is, I said. I don't know if my son was as impressed by the connection as I was, but he often is.

 

Another example is, as you observe, using other printed sources to supplement a main source. We started doing this with SOTW--we would read a chapter, then go to a historical atlas, then maybe a historical encyclopedia. Now we're doing this more systematically--we read several chapters of SOTW Vol. 2, then we read the (roughly) corresponding sections of three other sources. The repetition is not at all boring, in fact it makes the stuff more interesting--it is exactly what is needed to make better sense of SOTW.

 

We also do this with fiction books from time to time. While reading Little House on the Prairie recently, we looked up the location of Independence, pictures of Osage Indians, and routinely we look up definitions, pronunciations, and pictures of unusual things mentioned. Somebody might say that pictures ruin imagination; but how can you imagine something if you've never seen a single example of it?

 

On another thing you mentioned, I've read and skimmed a fair bit of Charlotte Mason, and read quite a bit of CM websites, but never actually dived head-first in to her books themselves--I must do that soon.

 

Thanks also to you and others for all the background info and pointers about classical education.

 

Just a couple of responses to 8FillTheHeart:

 

Pragmatically speaking :D while creating individual education plans for children is vastly superior and efficient compared to one-size fits all classroom education, I don't think most moms would actually accept the premise that homeschooling itself is efficient. ;) Educating in the midst of "life" at home is incredibly inefficient.

 

I'm sure you're right, but you're talking about the efficiency of the teacher/parent's time use. I was talking about the efficiency of an educational approach for purposes of educating the child--different thing.

 

The main area where I disagree with your efficiency contention, though, is actually #1. It actually takes MUCH longer to teach avg kids concepts at younger ages than if you simply wait. What you are witnessing w/your child learning and absorbing at a young age does not necessarily translate to the general population at large. Mental mile-markers in child development do exist. Decoding for reading (not sight reading) is on avg a 5 yr old skill. It is still completely w/in the normal range to not be able to decode until 6. It isn't a matter of being read to or instruction. It is the brain needing phonemic awareness. Living in home rich in language does not necessarily translate into a child that automatically has the phonemic awareness to read. It aids, but it is not a direct correlation. (and this isn't being pragmatic. This is from research and education. ;) Sight-reading is a different mental process than decoding. )

 

I'll try not to embarrass you too badly here, but I've written a book-length essay on this subject, so I disagree and know whereof I speak. :-) In fact, my essay is probably the single most complete, best researched, and most balanced source of information on the topic available, so if you want to learn more, or gain a new perspective, please read it. (How that for arrogance, huh?!) Here's a direct link to the PDF--it's 100% free.

 

Your views are very understandable and though I disagree, I don't blame you for thinking as you do. You've stated the mainstream attitude on the subject pretty well. But, without repeating my essay here, suffice it to say that there are quite a few people with brain defects who taught their children to decode at the first or second grade level when their children were still preschoolers. Given all those examples--and the many other regular folks who have used programs like "Your Baby Can Read" successfully--genius-level intelligence is clearly not required for a child to learn to read early. In some ways, learning to read as a baby or toddler is easier than as a five-year-old. This sounds like crazy talk, I'm sure, but it's not speculation, it's observation. The fact is that very, very few experts on reading, early education, or child development have had any significant experience with the methods that people have successfully used to teach their children to read, since the 1960s. The phenomenon simply hasn't been studied. Though thousands upon thousands of children have started reading before the age of two, and were well able to read brand new picture books with good understanding at age two or three, there is not so much as a case study of this phenomenon (i.e., parents deliberately teaching babies to read) in the literature. And, typical experts that they are, these experts pretend that since they don't know about it and haven't observed it, the phenomenon doesn't really exist. Well, speaking as a parent who taught his child deliberately and observed precisely how his child learned how to read beginning at age 22 months, speaking as a parent who talks nearly daily with other parents who have done similar things with their children, for me and us, it's a daily living reality. Not theory! :-)

 

By the way, one thing I did not do is force material created for kindergartners or first graders on my child when he was 2 or 3. I agree, that's a bad idea. The methods used for teaching very little kids are significantly different from the ones used for teaching first graders.

 

But experience has born out truth in the rest of your pts. :001_smile: I think you are on your way to having an incredible homeschooling journey w/your ds.

 

Glad to hear it!

 

Chopping my post into two as the system is complaining...

[LarrySanger]

Finally, prairiegirl:

 

I agree with most of your points that you made in your op, Larry, but I have issue with the words that you used. The word 'reject' is a strong word. You are rejecting philosophies/methods that work quite well for many here on the board and in the world. You are rejecting methods that many parents have given much thought to. They aren't using these methods out of ingorance. They chose these methods because they gave just as much thought as you did in choosing CE for your family. The tone of the post came across to me as arrogant.

 

Sometimes philosophers sound arrogant to non-philosophers when they are simply stating their views. Or maybe I just am arrogant. :D I don't think I am, I hope I'm not, and I'd feel bad if I decided I had been. Anyway, this is just how I write.

 

"Reject" is not a strong word in my mouth. When a philosopher tells you he rejects a view, he means simply that he disagrees with it. 8FillTheHeart rejects very early learning--I respect that and don't fault her for it. Radical unschoolers reject many of my views, or would if they knew about them. I don't fault them for that, either.

 

If there is some particular point that you think I'm wrong about, please say what it is and why I'm wrong. But please don't try to make me feel bad for forthrightly stating my opinion, just because it might seem to entail a criticism of how other people teach their children. If they get upset about my doing merely that, then boo hoo for them.

 

But all of these books and words on philosophy and method do not trump real life. Experience costs more than all philosophical talk.

 

As someone actually trained in philosophy for many years, let me say that I don't know what you mean when you imply that I think that philosophy "trumps" real life. Philosophies can fail to cohere with common experience, and unlike some philosophers, I frequently criticize philosophical views that do so. But then, I'm unusual as a philosopher, because I actually endorse the method of common sense (you can look it up--Thomas Reid and G. E. Moore are my heroes). But simply claiming that the things I said in my previous posts are somehow refuted by "experience," if that's what you want to do, is unimpressive. If you have an experienced-based argument to make against a general claim that I made--for example, if you want to offer a counterexample--then please do so. Just bear in mind that I know some of the things I've said were painted with a broad brush, and that more careful, long-winded writing is needed to get the nuance right.

 

Finally, let me clarify that when I say that early learning is efficient, I do not mean teaching children things they cannot understand and have no interest in. Probably, the methods I'm describe are unfamiliar to you. I never felt like I was pulling my hair out. The methods I have in mind routinely work, and are enjoyed by the child, when they are properly used by parents or teachers. They just happen to result in knowledge of certain concepts several years before children normally grasp them in our society at present.

 

Descending my podium! :D

Efficiency seems like an odd metric, as it is a ratio. I suspect most folks here care more about the numerator than the denominator. In the degenerate case, one could argue that the most efficient teacher is one who puts in zero work, and whose student still manages to learn a thing or two spontaneously.

[8filltheheart]

I'm sure you're right, but you're talking about the efficiency of the teacher/parent's time use. I was talking about the efficiency of an educational approach for purposes of educating the child--different thing.

 

If you separate the issue of time from the education of the child, then you are simply talking about theory that isn't applicable to any real homeschool. It isn't just time for actual teaching, but researching and learning the material you will teach. Unless you are a master at every high school subject, it takes a lot of prep time on the teacher side as well as working with your student to make sure that you know that what is being learned is correct. "Efficiency" at that point would technically switch to the advantage of the "expert." Homeschooling has lots of advantages, but it is unrealistic to not acknowledge that the disadvantages are significant and that to do what it takes to make it succeed is a lot of very real effort which is definitely not efficient.

 

 

I'll try not to embarrass you too badly here, but I've written a book-length essay on this subject, so I disagree and know whereof I speak. :-) In fact, my essay is probably the single most complete, best researched, and most balanced source of information on the topic available, so if you want to learn more, or gain a new perspective, please read it. (How that for arrogance, huh?!) Here's a direct link to the PDF--it's 100% free.

 

Your views are very understandable and though I disagree, I don't blame you for thinking as you do. You've stated the mainstream attitude on the subject pretty well. But, without repeating my essay here, suffice it to say that there are quite a few people with brain defects who taught their children to decode at the first or second grade level when their children were still preschoolers. Given all those examples--and the many other regular folks who have used programs like "Your Baby Can Read" successfully--genius-level intelligence is clearly not required for a child to learn to read early. In some ways, learning to read as a baby or toddler is easier than as a five-year-old. This sounds like crazy talk, I'm sure, but it's not speculation, it's observation. The fact is that very, very few experts on reading, early education, or child development have had any significant experience with the methods that people have successfully used to teach their children to read, since the 1960s. The phenomenon simply hasn't been studied. Though thousands upon thousands of children have started reading before the age of two, and were well able to read brand new picture books with good understanding at age two or three, there is not so much as a case study of this phenomenon (i.e., parents deliberately teaching babies to read) in the literature. And, typical experts that they are, these experts pretend that since they don't know about it and haven't observed it, the phenomenon doesn't really exist. Well, speaking as a parent who taught his child deliberately and observed precisely how his child learned how to read beginning at age 22 months, speaking as a parent who talks nearly daily with other parents who have done similar things with their children, for me and us, it's a daily living reality. Not theory! :-)

 

.

 

You aren't embarrassing me at all. I read your blog before I posted so I know exactly what you are promoting. I also still disagree with you. :001_smile: You can have kids that can sight read and know all their phonemes and still not be able to decode words that they don't recognize b/c their brains have not reached the point of mental maturity where they possess the phonemic awareness which allows them to actually break words into phonemes. Recall and decoding are not synonymous.

 

I also believe that older children can master in a few weeks what it takes younger kids months to achieve. Efficiency is not spending all the time it takes at the younger age vs. simply accomplishing it in a much shorter period of time at an older age.

 

Of course, I am also very biased b/c I could careless if my 3 or 4 yr old is reading independently. ;) So what you see as efficiency by teaching toddlers at a young age, I see as completely unnecessary. :)

Edited January 29, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[LND1218]

A little educational philosophizing now.

 

"What classical education is and why it is attractive" is a huge subject and I haven't read enough, yet, to have that much of interest to say on it. But I did want to make a few observations.

 

As many people here know (I gather), the way that Dorothy Sayers, the Bauers, and a lot of the "classical education" movement use "trivium" simply does not match up with the classical usage. "Grammar" does not mean "early education memorization stage," it means the study of the mechanics of language. "Logic" does not mean "argumentative stage," it means the study of the nature and standards of good argumentation. "Rhetoric" does not mean "the stage at which students can put together their own original ideas persuasively," it means "the study and practice of communication, especially persuasive communication." For the ancients, they weren't stages at all, but subjects, three of the subjects that make up the seven liberal arts. If you didn't know all this already, look it up. Look up the meaning of "trivium" in some reliable source that describes the historical meaning, not the classical education movement meaning.

 

Now, don't get me wrong--I'm also sure that Sayers and the Bauers knew all this, and I don't mean this as a criticism, because actually, WTM is my favorite homeschooling book and the method we use is closest to what WTM describes.

 

Still, there is something ironic about trading on the solidity, ancient reputation, and tried-and-true-ness of "classical education," even to employ the terms, only to discover that they are being used in a new sense. So I have to wonder: am I attracted to WTM because it purports to have a classical approach, or on its own merits (which, perhaps, strike me as "classical" in some legitimate sense)?

 

To answer this, we need to examine the WTM approach. Here's how I understand the main features of the WTM approach, stripped of the jargon:

1. Students should begin in the early years by doing a lot of reading and memorization.

2. There is a focus on academic (theoretical, scientific, and historical) knowledge, as opposed to practical knowledge (of how to do things).

3. Some subjects, like history and science, are taught in four-year cycles. When one returns to them, one studies the same subjects in the same order, but at a higher level.

4. Those subjects are taught in a roughly hierarchical or historical order.

5. In literature and some other subjects, there is a focus on classics, both in the traditional sense and in the "great books" sense, as well as on historically important documents.

6. Latin is taught; Greek is encouraged.

7. Logic and traditional grammar are both taught.

 

Am I leaving anything important out here? Probably. But for what it's worth, I happen to agree with every part of this. By the way, I think it goes without saying that one can't embrace 1-7 and let the students choose to learn whatever they want, Unschooling style; Unschooling in any meaningful sense almost certainly guarantees that none of 1-7 is accomplished.

 

Of these items, only 2, 6, and 7 are important parts of classical education in the sense of the medieval trivium & quadrivium. But I believe all seven (except, for all I know, 3) were important parts of the Western education tradition in approximately the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

Therefore I propose that the "classical education" movement is really misnamed. Really what WTM represents is a traditional approach--not a traditional 20th century approach, but a traditional 19th century homeschooling approach. Perhaps it would be best to call it a "traditional liberal arts home education." It is "traditional" because the methods of reading the classics, memorization, oral examination/narration, teaching the mechanics of writing and thought in the form of grammar and logic, etc., are traditional methods. It is "liberal arts" not in the medieval sense but in the well-understood modern sense of the sciences, humanities, and arts. It is important to add the word "home" because what we are doing is very different from what schooled children did at bigger schools in the 19th century--children who were made to study the same things at the same times, often under strict and miserable discipline.

 

Why is this attractive? I will answer only for myself. I think a liberal arts education is the best way to make a person into a well-informed and subtle thinker. This is important both because such people are needed to develop and run the machinery of 21st century civilization, but for the more timeless reason that the world is a terrifically complicated place; one simply can't make sense of it, and be at all rationally confident of one's way of life or world view, unless one has studied the world in the abstract and in historical detail, and one has been trained to think and write about it systematically.

 

I reject Unschooling wholeheartedly because that approach, while it might train children in subjects and skills they are interested in, it is bound to leave them with significant gaps in their intellectual training. That's because hardly any student will just happen to choose to do everything that is required of a liberal education.

 

I also reject most 21st century public and private schooling because, while it is possible for a diligent student to learn a lot, he or she will simply spend too much time on busywork and unnecessary tasks to be able to get a really robust liberal arts education. In fact, the only way such most schooled students can be thoroughly practiced in the liberal arts is if they go to college and get a liberal arts (rather than a technical) education there. This is the root reason why so many kids go to college now: primary & secondary schooling doesn't provide them an adequate education, and the demands of the modern world really require that they be better educated. Sadly, society has become so anti-intellectual that there are demands to dismantle liberal arts programs in colleges and to make them into technical training centers even more than they already are.

 

I, personally, enjoyed reading this post. I agree with much of it. And I think it could make for a very engaging discussion. Having homeschooled a long time I agree theory and reality often part ways. I think the point you make about classical education being misnamed is true. "Classical" as a title is both too general and too specific to be applied as widely and freely as it is has been applied in recent years.

 

I love a good discussion of theory. I agree with Ester Maria that homeschool moms (especially those here) quickly shift from theory to reality. I have seen in my own life moms struggle with discussions of theory and principles. Thanks for starting the topic. It is food thought. It's wonderful to be challenged in what we believe and why we believe it even if our reality may look different from our ideals.

 

I will come back to this thread when I have more time....for now my reality is calling.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Julia- just a quick note on your above post...

 

From your blog I see you mention LCC, Circe and other things I'm exploring for the first time; the conference talks, the books, etc.

 

It took me at least three readings of WTM to get my feet on the ground. It took me three days to get through one of A. Kern conference pieces, Circe blows my mind, LCC remains untouched at this point but is on the path of things to do.

 

And WEM, well, that alone is a life-time project as far as I'm able to understand it.

 

No fifty dollar words/ideas here, but just want to say that I appreciate, for myself, that this place (forum) holds a worldwide audience, and because of that diversity; for myself, I do not believe or could I be convinced that there is one clinical definition of what "classical education" is or should be viewed as.

 

I understand that here, we have some fourth-generation (or longer?) contributors of particular styles and traditions. Not all of them match or align perfectly on outlook or definitions.

 

And I'm glad they don't. Very glad.

[Ester Maria]

I am not sure if I am going to articulate this very well, between insomnia, some current pressing issues which bring some fog into my mind, and the ultimate ESL curse, so bear with me, here are a few thoughts on efficiency.

 

1. What is efficient is not necessarily what is the most effective in the long run, in the grand scheme of things.

 

I believe there is a whole set of skills that parents ought not (= as my personal value you may or may not share) directly teach, but instead allow their children to learn on their own on their own pace, and interfere with direct teaching only should the results of a child's natural development in the area prove insufficient. Early reading sort of falls into this category for me: no, it is not impossible to directly teach a toddler to read (and the experience of a subculture that systematically does that proves it) - but I see a greater long term value in allowing the child crack the code on their own. One can opt to sacrifice immediate efficiency, especially if they do not believe their children gain or lose much by a few years' difference in reading or believe there are better ways to invest into skills that early (e.g. a serious foreign language immersion which has excellent results at such a young age), and allow the child the pleasure of having mastered some skills on their own, without explicit deliberate instruction. I find that I combine "school" with "life" - some things require that deliberate instruction and guidance as far as skills are concerned, but other things I deliberately do not help with (too much) and let the child figure it out. It sacrificies efficiency, but it is highly effective nonetheless, and teaches some other important skills.

 

2. Likewise, the optimization sometimes requires postponing things rather than doing them early. I have studied this in particular with classical language acquisition and found, much to my shock (plus with my own "early classics" experiment), that the optimum seems to be to start Latin about late elementary and Greek in middle school - by comparing various European classical schools' tradition, how far they get with what type of instruction at what age and with which intensity. There are areas where you cannot do so much with littles, but where the little grow up just a little bit, they eat it up in no time. Therefore, if we look at the final result, at what we want to accomplish by the end of 12th grade, sometimes the efficient path (time-wise, effort-wise) is actually to start in the middle of the road, not from the beginning, because by that middle certain academic skills will have been acquired to a greater extent and allow for a more productive learning so what would have taken years and years for elementary aged kis can be efficiently condensated for middle school kids. Morphosyntax of classical languages, in particular, can be efficiently taught in three years per language in middle school and in two years per language in high school - but not at elementary age with the same time and effort involved. So, sometimes waiting is actually calculated waiting, because one estimates what is the most likely "optimum starting point" and prefers to invest into other skills early. I have discussed this issue with numerous colleagues particularly as regards language acquisition and while I am not exactly in the "better late than early" camp, there are things for which I am convinced that the optimization sometimes postpones some things, as counter-intuitive as it may seem at first.

 

3. Finally, efficiency is sometimes counter-productive for forming some types of connections in my own academic experience. This is in some ways the same as point #1, but a more adult version. Inferring things, sleeping on some problems, allowing for some time - even a lot of time - to pass while thinking about things, sometimes results in better overall comprehension and intimacy with the subject than opting for the most efficient method of going through a textbook on whatever it is as the first step.

 

For example, I often have my kids write on topics before we study them in-depth and develop their ideas before I make a systematic, concise summary for them and an insight into other people's ideas. This is actually quite relevant for what is apparently your field :tongue_smilie:, because while one can take a "history of philosophy" approach that is a common way of fleshing things out in European lycees that I am familiar with, I have actually found a problem-based approach and textual study to be much more effective for general understanding before the chronological / history approach with a theoretical synthesis. It is not efficient. What is efficient is to spread it out chronologically, put in many excerpts, and pull something like Anzenbacher as a general theoretical companion. But strangely, it seems to be way more effective to create a system out of chaos sometimes, not the other way round. Likewise, I am actually against the chronological literature approach before high school, because I think kids profit from readings in synchrony rather then the diachronically picked ones a lot more on the earlier stages of education - which is also, perhaps, not the most efficient approach, but it builds certain skills and connections that otherwise might have been lost in the process. I also did history the reverse way from what you wrote - original sources mixed with general info first, and then some kind of a summarizing text (however, I did not do history with my children when they were five, so I might do it differently with such a small child), nor has it ever been my idea to use sources to reinforce the understanding of SOTW - quite the opposite. I tend to go from the "piece of something original" to "commentary & elaboration", not the other way round. I sometimes skip and mix entire levels, too, to connect different ideas - so first I do Philo, then skip to Rambam, work exclusively with text, and then give an overview of a history of attempts to systematize principles of Jewish faith, and the whole theoretical background of how philosophy even enters into a system like Judaism, and then we go back to Aristotle, then back to Rambam again and to Christian Aristotelian thinkers, then we jump back in history to the codification of rabbinical literature to discuss the major repercussions of the "meeting" between Hellenism and Judaism from that point onward... definitely not efficient as it could have been a lot more straightforward, systematic and shorter. But it is effective and it builds many skills which are lost in a clear chronological progression and in the most efficient approach (ask me how I know, LOL).

 

Because of that, I do not think that the most efficient approach is necessarily the "best" approach at all times or an ideal to strive for in all cases. I am very systematic as to some things, but allowed a shocking lot to my children's natural pace and discretion, as well as deliberately allowed them to struggle with some things without efficient instruction, all as an integral part of their education because I think some important skills are being developed this way. So, it is a mix.

[8filltheheart]

I am not sure if I am going to articulate this very well, between insomnia, some current pressing issues which bring some fog into my mind, and the ultimate ESL curse, so bear with me, here are a few thoughts on efficiency.

 

1. What is efficient is not necessarily what is the most effective in the long run, in the grand scheme of things.

 

I believe there is a whole set of skills that parents ought not (= as my personal value you may or may not share) directly teach, but instead allow their children to learn on their own on their own pace, and interfere with direct teaching only should the results of a child's natural development in the area prove insufficient. Early reading sort of falls into this category for me: no, it is not impossible to directly teach a toddler to read (and the experience of a subculture that systematically does that proves it) - but I see a greater long term value in allowing the child crack the code on their own. One can opt to sacrifice immediate efficiency, especially if they do not believe their children gain or lose much by a few years' difference in reading or believe there are better ways to invest into skills that early (e.g. a serious foreign language immersion which has excellent results at such a young age), and allow the child the pleasure of having mastered some skills on their own, without explicit deliberate instruction. I find that I combine "school" with "life" - some things require that deliberate instruction and guidance as far as skills are concerned, but other things I deliberately do not help with (too much) and let the child figure it out. It sacrificies efficiency, but it is highly effective nonetheless, and teaches some other important skills.

 

2. Likewise, the optimization sometimes requires postponing things rather than doing them early. I have studied this in particular with classical language acquisition and found, much to my shock (plus with my own "early classics" experiment), that the optimum seems to be to start Latin about late elementary and Greek in middle school - by comparing various European classical schools' tradition, how far they get with what type of instruction at what age and with which intensity. There are areas where you cannot do so much with littles, but where the little grow up just a little bit, they eat it up in no time. Therefore, if we look at the final result, at what we want to accomplish by the end of 12th grade, sometimes the efficient path (time-wise, effort-wise) is actually to start in the middle of the road, not from the beginning, because by that middle certain academic skills will have been acquired to a greater extent and allow for a more productive learning so what would have taken years and years for elementary aged kis can be efficiently condensated for middle school kids. Morphosyntax of classical languages, in particular, can be efficiently taught in three years per language in middle school and in two years per language in high school - but not at elementary age with the same time and effort involved. So, sometimes waiting is actually calculated waiting, because one estimates what is the most likely "optimum starting point" and prefers to invest into other skills early. I have discussed this issue with numerous colleagues particularly as regards language acquisition and while I am not exactly in the "better late than early" camp, there are things for which I am convinced that the optimization sometimes postpones some things, as counter-intuitive as it may seem at first.

 

3. Finally, efficiency is sometimes counter-productive for forming some types of connections in my own academic experience. This is in some ways the same as point #1, but a more adult version. Inferring things, sleeping on some problems, allowing for some time - even a lot of time - to pass while thinking about things, sometimes results in better overall comprehension and intimacy with the subject than opting for the most efficient method of going through a textbook on whatever it is as the first step.

 

For example, I often have my kids write on topics before we study them in-depth and develop their ideas before I make a systematic, concise summary for them and an insight into other people's ideas. This is actually quite relevant for what is apparently your field :tongue_smilie:, because while one can take a "history of philosophy" approach that is a common way of fleshing things out in European lycees that I am familiar with, I have actually found a problem-based approach and textual study to be much more effective for general understanding before the chronological / history approach with a theoretical synthesis. It is not efficient. What is efficient is to spread it out chronologically, put in many excerpts, and pull something like Anzenbacher as a general theoretical companion. But strangely, it seems to be way more effective to create a system out of chaos sometimes, not the other way round. Likewise, I am actually against the chronological literature approach before high school, because I think kids profit from readings in synchrony rather then the diachronically picked ones a lot more on the earlier stages of education - which is also, perhaps, not the most efficient approach, but it builds certain skills and connections that otherwise might have been lost in the process. I also did history the reverse way from what you wrote - original sources mixed with general info first, and then some kind of a summarizing text (however, I did not do history with my children when they were five, so I might do it differently with such a small child), nor has it ever been my idea to use sources to reinforce the understanding of SOTW - quite the opposite. I tend to go from the "piece of something original" to "commentary & elaboration", not the other way round. I sometimes skip and mix entire levels, too, to connect different ideas - so first I do Philo, then skip to Rambam, work exclusively with text, and then give an overview of a history of attempts to systematize principles of Jewish faith, and the whole theoretical background of how philosophy even enters into a system like Judaism, and then we go back to Aristotle, then back to Rambam again and to Christian Aristotelian thinkers, then we jump back in history to the codification of rabbinical literature to discuss the major repercussions of the "meeting" between Hellenism and Judaism from that point onward... definitely not efficient as it could have been a lot more straightforward, systematic and shorter. But it is effective and it builds many skills which are lost in a clear chronological progression and in the most efficient approach (ask me how I know, LOL).

 

Because of that, I do not think that the most efficient approach is necessarily the "best" approach at all times or an ideal to strive for in all cases. I am very systematic as to some things, but allowed a shocking lot to my children's natural pace and discretion, as well as deliberately allowed them to struggle with some things without efficient instruction, all as an integral part of their education because I think some important skills are being developed this way. So, it is a mix.

 

What a thoughtful post, EM. Insomnia, 2nd language, and all you stated quite effectively (if not efficiently :lol: ) many of my thoughts on the issue. (just teasing, it was quite efficient, as well!)

[OrdinaryTime]

I find it odd that you chose "efficiency" as a vital measuring stick for a solid education, especially a liberal arts education. To me the end of a liberal arts education is not the simply the accumulation of the most knowledge or facts or information possible, a goal to which efficiency would naturally lend itself. Instead the end of a liberal arts education is the development of the whole human person, resulting in the virtuous person. The measuring stick I would use in this case would not be how efficient the educational process is, but how well one's education leads a person to recognize and understand the good, the true, and beautiful. As a busy mom I'm always looking for ways to make my teaching time as efficient as possible, but that seems to be more of a side issue, not a vital organizing principle for my educational philosophy. The formation of the reason and will towards the truth is always the primary end. The means to it maybe efficient or not. I chose the means I believe will best get us to our final goal, not simply the most efficient. Too focus too much on efficiency seems to risk falling too far into more progressive theories of education.

 

Edited: For ungodly use of the English language. NEVER use the voice-to-text feature on your phone, then fail to edit because you want to watch Downtown Abbey. Just don't.

Edited January 30, 2012 by OrdinaryTime

[Lang Syne Boardie]

When I was a child I stared out the window of my school classroom, having long since learned my lesson but made to sit idle until it was time for the whole class to move on to something else. Years of my life were just wasted. If they couldn't teach me they could have at least sent me to the library. That wasn't an efficient use of my school hours.

 

I thought Larry was talking about not wasting the child's time as much as anything.

 

Yes, we can streamline school practices quite a bit. They waste too much of everything, from printer ink to minutes on the clock.

 

But I thought Larry was talking about how to spend less time digging worms and more time fishing. How can everyone involved in education learn to just get to the point? How can children be taught to attend (CM's word, meaning 'pay attention,'), how can the teacher be trained to notice the depth of each child's understanding so she neither confuses him or bores him, how can standards and curriculum be excised of fluff and agenda so everyone can actually know exactly what is they are supposed to be learning...

 

this is my idea of becoming more efficient, so that's how I viewed Larry's posts.

 

And I do maintain that homeschooling is more efficient, even for Mom. I may work like a dog amidst great distraction, but at least I know exactly what the objectives of my child's lessons are and whether he gets it. Whether we need 5 minutes or 50 to master that lesson, none of the minutes are wasted. My friends tell horrible tales of trying to figure out their child's homework and get him to do it. So his day was wasted at school, and he had to bring home ways to help the whole family waste the evening, as well. No time for personal thought or family interaction. No time for sport or for handing down values, NO. Everyone must gather around an indecipherable page of Everyday Math homework and git'er done, or at least get the child to scrawl something to turn in tomorrow.

 

Now that's inefficient.