What classical education is and why it is attractive

[Bang!Zoom!]

Oooh, good thoughts OT! Super duper wonderful good.

 

Something has been nagging at me since EM last post, and that is, I think..that I was drawn by the idea of not giving the answers, but allowing the struggle in the learner to make the connections and find the paths from current knowledge and *realizing* that there is a fundamental (is that the right word?) issue there..for the learner to develop internal questioning and the desire to fill in those gaps.

 

I'm not doing very good at nailing the concept that's rolling around in my thoughts..but is it a disservice to "over-provide" information and facts and where to find them?

 

Something about feeding curiosity...or the intentional withholding of "the end of the story" - it's sort of foggy for me right now, but there is something there to think about.

[OrdinaryTime]

First, I want to apologize for the atrocious state of my first post. NEVER use your voice-to-text feature on your phone to write a post, and then fail to edit it because you want to watch Downton Abbey. My apologies, you all deserve better.

[justamouse]

 

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.

 

I have a dream, that one day SOTW be embedded with content, beautiful pictures and videos pertaining to the content being taught. :D As you flip though the pages on your ipad, you can access it all.

 

I'm probably making SWB pull her hair out, but there it is.

 

 

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.

 

That's how I saw it, too. But I do really like what EM had to say, and see a lot of our day in what she wrote (the pragmatic, there she is...)

 

First, I want to apologize for the atrocious state of my first post. NEVER use your voice-to-text feature on your phone to write a post, and then fail to edit it because you want to watch Downton Abbey. My apologies, you all deserve better.

:lol:

Edited January 30, 2012 by justamouse

[OrdinaryTime]

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.

 

I completely understand your point here, Tibbie. The mind-numbing boredom and horrific inefficiency of my public school lead me to ask my parents to homeschool me when I was a high school freshman. One of the best things about homeschooling is the ability to provide individualized instruction, which is almost always more efficient than large group instruction. It is certainly one of the reasons I chose to have myself homeschooled and why I am choosing to homeschool my children.

 

I guess I didn't take Larry's assertions this way because I went to his blog post link, which was titled: Efficiency as a basic educational principle. I don't think efficiency should be a basic educational principle. Maybe a basic educational practice, but even then I agree with EM's post that sometimes efficiency may not be the most effective way to achieve one's educational goals. I view a principle more as a goal or an end. I would not say that efficiency is a goal of a liberal arts or classical education. Of course, Larry may not have meant principle to be such a loaded word.

[LarrySanger]

Gosh, where to begin. Thanks to everyone for the lively debate and thoughtful responses!

 

Ester Maria, you've made some perfectly sound arguments. With maybe one exception, I agree with everything you've said. I too would disagree with someone who had said that a simple-minded commitment to efficiency of all sorts in education, without adequate attention to the end sought. I'm glad that's not what I said, though! ;) Let me repeat my principle just to contextualize the following:

 

"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."

 

By the way, @OrdinaryTime--that doesn't say that efficiency is a measuring stick for a solid education. I didn't discuss the goal of education, but the means of education. If you're disagreeing with with me that knowledge is the primary goal of education, saying that ultimately it's character-building, then your complaint is not about my principle but the assumptions about educational goals I make in applying the principle. And @GGardner, efficiency in this sense is not efficiency in the physics sense, which is indeed a ratio. In the sense I'm employing, efficiency is simply a measure of how well suited the use of time is to the end of getting knowledge. Someone who does nothing toward getting knowledge has zero efficiency, in this sense.

 

Why do I focus on efficiency, of all things? Why that word, or concept? Because I find myself actually agreeing that lots of educational activities aren't entirely wastes of time. Doing projects of various sorts, doing six years of gradually more difficult grammar work in workbooks, reading textbooks, letting kids spend hours upon hours developing their own non-academic hobbies during prime working time, spending 90% of school time in on-the-job training at age 14, etc., etc.--these and many more things strike me as plausible in some sense. But at the end of the day, I've acquainted myself adequately with such things and decided not to use them with my child. I find the endless drumbeat of progressive educators on some of these scores (the project method, "experiential learning," etc.) obnoxious. I ask myself why. Ultimately, it is because the methods in question do not serve the cause of knowledge efficiently. Again, they are not exactly a waste of time, it's just that doing other sorts of things during the limited time we have to study will result in a better education overall.

 

Notice that, in making this argument, I am not saying that efficiency in this (or any other) sense is the only consideration in making decisions about education. The principle is, again, neutral as to the precise goal of education (it only speaks of "learning"). There might be other principles that refine or qualify this one.

 

So back to Ester's post, which I found to be very interesting. "Efficiency doesn't guarantee effectiveness" is just a way to say that getting one job done efficiently (like getting knowledge into the student's brain) doesn't guarantee that the correct job has been done (ensuring the information is deeply understood). Agreed. But then you're not disagreeing with me on efficiency, you might be disagreeing with me about the goal at which I am aiming. Or you might not--after all, I mention understanding several times in my blog post, and in fact I agree that deep understanding is paramount. I would in fact say that the question is how most efficiently to give the student deep understanding of the world.

 

On this, you (Ester) say that children should be allowed to discover things for themselves and while this might not be the most efficient (fastest) way of learning something, it is the most effective (presumably, because of superior understanding). Well, I think that depends on the field and on the age. Lots of progressives want students to follow "discovery learning" or "inquiry learning" but they end up having students attempting to prove some abstract laws of physics, for example, that none but the most brilliant of students have any chance of discovering except with quite a bit of hand-holding. Enough hand-holding and it's not "discovery learning" anymore. There are lots of things that a child simply cannot discover on his own--facts about history and geography, for example. They have to be told, and the more clearly and directly, the better.

 

When students get older, like college philosophy students, then yeah--you can expect them to think things through for themselves. But they can't do that effectively until they've seen many, many instances of teachers (or authors of books, or whatever) thinking things through. It makes sense in philosophy, so I know just what you mean. It also makes sense to have math students choose their own methods for working out a problem. It does not make so much sense to have elementary students try to discover the methods themselves, however.

 

In fact, I'd say that what can be taught directly, and what can be taught indirectly by asking students questions (or inducing them to ask questions of themselves), is so complex and variable that the whole direct instruction vs. constructivism debate is pointless. Pick a particular topic, and we can debate about the effectiveness of different methods of teaching it. Sometimes, asking questions is the best way to conduce to understanding. Other times, that's silly and the only way is to have the students, say, read a book very carefully. If we can make a generalization, it's that direction instruction works best for younger children and when the subject matter is purely factual, while the inquiry method works best for older students and when the subject matter is highly complex and open to interpretation.

 

There's much more to say, but I have run out of time and need to head to bed!

 

Wait, let me add one concession--if I were to rewrite that blog post, I would be sure to say more about understanding as the goal I have in mind.

[ladydusk]

I'm late to the party, having been sick much of the week and still not feeling my best, but I thought, perhaps I would speak some to your initial post regarding "classical" "neo-classical" and "19C traditional" education. I would tend to agree that WTM is not purely classical (and from what SWB has said, she thinks we all participate in a neo-classical form of education, what with educating daughters and not using slaves to do so). Assuming you've read the story of how Jessie Wise came to home educate SWB and her siblings in WTM, you know that Jessie was educated in rural Virginia, in an older manner, and taught her children how she had been taught with phonics and grammar and those old-fangled methods. I don't remember if that story is from the book or from one of the talks that can be downloaded from the Peace Hill Press site. (well worth your time)

 

Clearly, and I think it can even be seen in the texts they recommend like R&S, that they have a traditional view of education that in some way or another grew out of the Classical tradition, using many of the same methods, ideas, and pedagogy. That would be an interesting history to trace.

 

We can see that in the older educators. My mom, who gained her degree in Education in the mid to early sixties, took a college prep track (in rural Ohio) that included Latin and higher math while that was still the norm for those intending to further their education. When women who wanted a further education had really two choices: nursing or education. The best went into those fields. But, being more rural, perhaps her education was not as tampered with by the likes of Dewey and the progressives. It seems that Mrs. Wise had a similar education and also attained an education degree.

 

Sayers, I think, was also speaking from a more true Classical education, in Britain no less, but I've seen speculation that her prepared remarks were not necessarily supposed to be forced into a pedagogical theory and practiced as it is practiced today. Yet it seems many, many families and schools who have used it as an inspiration to draw from are thriving and succeeding.

 

All that to say, WTM is not the only stream of thought in Classical Education, and many suggestions throughout this thread have been made from CiRCE, Charlotte Mason, LCC, Climbing Parnassus, EM's clearly spectacular education, to 8fills' Jesuit-inspired Catholic pedagogy, to many others. One of my favorite books is Evans and Littlejon's Wisdom and Eloquence which articulates the Trivium as disciplines view you discussed in the OP with a distinct end of producing wise and eloquent members of society.

 

These homeschoolers, I read everything they write. Their philosophies of Education may or may not match mine, their religious affiliations too. However, as they articulate what they think, believe, practice, I refine and consider what I think. They are educating me. But they've earned the right to be heard by not only philosophizing (which I love), but engaging with those of us who are struggling in the trenches of the practical.

 

Welcome to the boards, stick around, post some and see what the homeschoolers here do. There are some exceptional people here who have done and are doing the work of educating their children from a place of much study, preparation, and continuing education of not only the content of but the practice of Classical Education. Talk to us, let us get to know you, and get to know us, we can be a friendly hive :)

[LarrySanger]

I had to reply to this one briefly, too:

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.

 

Of course not. But you seem to be under the impression that people who spend many, many hours teaching their children to read don't understand this distinction. Why think that? Believe me, they know when their children have merely memorized individual words, or individual phonemes, but cannot decode. (I know, because many of them have asked me for advice, and I tell them to use ReadingBear.org ;-) . Not that I'm biased or anything.) My point is that many children can indeed decode at a surprisingly early age--as early as 18 months. You might find this hard to believe, but it is a fact. And you know what they say--you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. There is nothing really to interpret here. If you tried real hard to be unbiased, you too would probably be forced to admit that some of those sub-three-year-olds were decoding very nicely at an early age.

 

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.

 

Sometimes, probably, kids who start reading in kindergarten or first grade can learn to read faster than a kid who starts at age 12 months. But typically, children are reading at the second grade level when they are seven. We (on brillkids.com--don't worry, I'm independent of them--and elsewhere) have lots and lots of examples of kids reading at the second grade level when they are three.

 

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. :)

 

I don't say that early reading is necessary. I say it is possible for many children and probably very beneficial when achieved, and too easily cast aside by parents who mistakenly think that the research or experts are against it, without actually being acquainted with the actual state of knowledge on this narrow topic.

Edited January 30, 2012 by LarrySanger

[jenbrdsly]

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.

 

 

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.

 

My two cents....I did not feel like Beth was being impolite, or requesting anyone's credentials. She was simply sharing her experience as a mother with younger children that she homeschools, and older children who are in brick and mortar schools. I respect and value her opinion a lot.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think I would tend to choose efficiency as a word to describe homeschooling. Knowing the best routes to approach things pedagogically is important - and I am always a sucker for elegant structures - but something about it rubs me the wrong way. I suppose I tend to think that a quest for the most efficient way to do something will often miss things. I'm not sure why I find this such a disturbing criteria educationally, I'll have to think about it more. I think it undoubtably connects to my view that the messier, less evidently efficient course of action often reveals the most elegant structures of all and is ultimately the most interesting and worthwhile, if not useful. I suppose maybe it seems too utilitarian, which is not an educational value I would ever support.

 

I am not a particular fan of focused instruction in younger children. I think the idea, by the way, that that reflects the mainstream attitude is false. It is precisely the mainstream attitude which is why we have children being sent to pre-school programs meant to ready them for academics at two, or school at four, or five year olds sent to kumon or other after school programs so they can get ahead academically. And to what end? Will they somehow be better off at 19 when they head off into the world to persue some sort of vocation? Will they have really missed some important great works of literature in the two or three years they were not reading? Do these early readers really shine forth as posessing greater wisdom and learning, or as being more successful, at 45?

 

I think at that age if children want it and are ready, they will learn to read. If they are not it is because they are busy doing other important things, and interfering with instruction in skills like reading will only interfere with that. It is a lot of work for little gain.

 

Audio-visual stuff - yes, some of it can be fun and we can learn a lot from it. On the other hand, we should keep in mind that for children the local world is just as amazing and new, and what's more it is possible to actually have a first-hand, personal, unmediated relationship with it. I'd go so far as to say without significant depth in those first hand relationships, second hand ones will be less deep as well, since it is through them the images and such will be interpreted.

 

In general, I would say the primary educational job of pre-schoolers and K level students is to develop concrete relationships with the world. They are still young enough that they need to be accumulating those kinds of first hand relationships with objects, places, and people. Those experiences are what give them the ability to later really grasp the abstractions and second hand experiences they will get in their formal education. Trying to develop relations with abstractions is most often a waste of time and, dare I say, inefficient.

 

I think that when Charlotte Mason tells us that "education is the science of relations" she is saying something very important, and educators need to keep in mind her warning that among the most important job of the educator in fostering these is "masterly inactivity". Selecting the best mind-food for students is important, as is providing it at a developmentally appropriate time. But the educator has to be very careful not to insert him or herself between the object and the student, not to teach, or interpret, too much. What we want is for the student to approach Shakespere, not mom or dad or Ms. Smith's version of Shakespeare. Pre-digested food is not all that appealing to anyone.

[jenbrdsly]

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.

 

 

 

 

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. :)

 

Generally 8FilltheHeart and I disagree or see things differently, but in this case I agree with her 100%. This was very well put!

However, I also see a lot of truth in Larry's position and believe that young children can learn a lot more than we think them capable of, if only we could find the right teaching methods to reach them.

For example, I think it is easier to teach a 3 year old her letters and sounds than a five year old. I believe there is some sort of "window of opportunity" that happens, just like in potty training.

As for the original post, I have never understood why SWB and JW picked the trivium instead of the quadrivium. It seems like the heavy math would be in the quadrivium. But then, if you look at the 7 liberal arts as a whole, you would still be missing algebra, trig, and calculus. So at that point I start scratching my head and thinking the whole model isn't making very much sense to begin with.

[Bluegoat]

Generally 8FilltheHeart and I disagree or see things differently, but in this case I agree with her 100%. This was very well put!

 

However, I also see a lot of truth in Larry's position and believe that young children can learn a lot more than we think them capable of, if only we could find the right teaching methods to reach them.

 

For example, I think it is easier to teach a 3 year old her letters and sounds than a five year old. I believe there is some sort of "window of opportunity" that happens, just like in potty training.

 

As for the original post, I have never understood why SWB and JW picked the trivium instead of the quadrivium. It seems like the heavy math would be in the quadrivium. But then, if you look at the 7 liberal arts as a whole, you would still be missing algebra, trig, and calculus. So at that point I start scratching my head and thinking the whole model isn't making very much sense to begin with.

 

The quadrivium was taught in universities, after students had mastered the trivium. The subjects of the trivium were really foundational in the medieval model, the ability to use language well, to reason, and to argue convincingly - the basic skills that enable higher learning. The content based learning of the quadrivium was understood to depend on those skills.

 

But of course you actually have overlaps all over the place - it is not like anyone ever waited until the teenage years to begin teach children to count. And in the medieval period the trivium was not taught in separate stages either, but together and overlapping.

[Mrs Twain]

I had to reply to this one briefly, too:

 

 

Of course not. But you seem to be under the impression that people who spend many, many hours teaching their children to read don't understand this distinction. Why think that? Believe me, they know when their children have merely memorized individual words, or individual phonemes, but cannot decode. (I know, because many of them have asked me for advice, and I tell them to use ReadingBear.org ;-) . Not that I'm biased or anything.) My point is that many children can indeed decode at a surprisingly early age--as early as 18 months. You might find this hard to believe, but it is a fact. And you know what they say--you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. There is nothing really to interpret here. If you tried real hard to be unbiased, you too would probably be forced to admit that some of those sub-three-year-olds were decoding very nicely at an early age.

 

 

 

Sometimes, probably, kids who start reading in kindergarten or first grade can learn to read faster than a kid who starts at age 12 months. But typically, children are reading at the second grade level when they are seven. We (on brillkids.com--don't worry, I'm independent of them--and elsewhere) have lots and lots of examples of kids reading at the second grade level when they are three.

 

 

 

I don't say that early reading is necessary. I say it is possible for many children and probably very beneficial when achieved, and too easily cast aside by parents who mistakenly think that the research or experts are against it, without actually being acquainted with the actual state of knowledge on this narrow topic.

 

I am not going to weigh in on the philosphy discussion, but I do agree with Larry about early reading. I taught all of my kids to read early using 100EZ. (I don't know how that compares to your favorite programs, Larry, but 100EZ worked perfectly for all of my kids.)

 

I would argue that teaching reading to kids at an early age increases efficiency greatly. It took me about a year to teach my 3-year old to read and get to about a 1st-2nd grade level. She is now five years old and reading on about a third grade level. I don't think that is longer than the amount of time I would have taken if she started to learn reading at age five or six.

 

Also, school is very efficient for a child who already knows how to read. It is quite easy to teach a kindergartener who can read well to write and learn spelling. I find that my kids think material on their grade levels is mostly easy since they can read well. Actually, being able to read well in the younger grades translates into them being grade levels ahead in most subjects. Even math is more efficient since the child can read the directions and figure out how to do the math problems. I don't have to sit for the whole school day at my kindergartener's or first grader's side reading them directions and explaining to them everything they have to do. They read the directions themselves and can do a lot of work independently. I never sit at my child's side as a scribe while they dictate things to me. They are all able to write independently (at least phonetically) starting when they are in kindergarten or sooner, all because they learned to read early.

 

In summary, I think teaching reading early increases efficiency greatly. At least that is my pratical, real world experience with my own children.

[Spy Car]

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...

 

While I love board-member Justamouse to pieces (despite this suggestion :tongue_smilie:) I loathed reading Climbing Parnassus.

 

Tracy Lee Simmons has an awfully bloated opinion of himself, and his "anyone who hasn't mastered both Greek and Latin is an ignorant twit, and don't try because you are not Tracy Lee Simmons" approach was beyond off-putting to me.

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

Tracy Lee Simmons has an awfully bloated opinion of himself, and his "anyone who hasn't mastered both Greek and Latin is an ignorant twit, and don't try because you are not Tracy Lee Simmons" approach was beyond off-putting to me.

You are going to make me actually read that book now. :tongue_smilie: I have only skimmed it at some point.

[8filltheheart]

 

I am not a particular fan of focused instruction in younger children. I think the idea, by the way, that that reflects the mainstream attitude is false. It is precisely the mainstream attitude which is why we have children being sent to pre-school programs meant to ready them for academics at two, or school at four, or five year olds sent to kumon or other after school programs so they can get ahead academically. And to what end? Will they somehow be better off at 19 when they head off into the world to persue some sort of vocation? Will they have really missed some important great works of literature in the two or three years they were not reading? Do these early readers really shine forth as posessing greater wisdom and learning, or as being more successful, at 45?

 

I think at that age if children want it and are ready, they will learn to read. If they are not it is because they are busy doing other important things, and interfering with instruction in skills like reading will only interfere with that. It is a lot of work for little gain.

 

 

I was originally not going to respond any more to the thread b/c I believe that the issue boils down to individual values vs. any other issue. I do not "doubt" that young children can be taught to read. The issue, for me personally, is the value in "school" for very young children. It also is to the pt where responding in snippets is not a satisfactory way of communicating thoughts. But Bluegoat's response is headed in the direction my thoughts go, so here is an attempt to convey in brevity the seriousness of the issue from my perspective.

 

I arrived at my views from education and research, as well as large doses of personal philosophy. They weren't randomly adopted w/o thought.

 

When I was in college, I had an older professor who became my mentor. He lamented what he saw as the decline in the ability of students to "think." He believed students were good at regurgitating information but lacked the ability to make connections and form their own analysis based on their own individual evaluation of data. He urged me to research the "preschool phenomena" vs. unstructured dramatic play's influence on the cognitive development of higher order thinking skills in young children. It was that research that has partly shaped my views. (fwiw, research shows that dramatic play leads to higher cognitive skills than early academics.)

 

As I got older and had children, my views also became enmeshed in my philosophy of life. What is the purpose of life? The purpose of life from my perspective is not to create solely an academically formed individual. Life is about making connections, observations, exploring, discovering, and appreciating. From my perspective, my little children are far better served playing vs. academics for them to achieve what I want for them. (and I am not suggesting that anyone else needs to agree or even care. This is simply how I have arrived at the position I hold.) I also prefer that they listen to the elevated language of stories that I read to them vs. the simple language of little kid readers.

 

Ultimately, no, I do not believe that early "taught" readers are further ahead in the long-term. (that is to distinguish from gifted children that teach themselves to read at incredibly young ages......that is a completely different conversation.) I also believe that as society embraces and pushes for earlier and earlier academics under the premise that somehow it leads to better educated populace, that the definition of what "educated" means may mean different things to different people.

 

And that brings me back to my first post in this thread. Ignatian philosophy. Since, as usual, life is calling me to abandon any more time writing on a post, here are the relevant parts of an old post of mine on Ignatian philosophy:

 

The Jesuit definition of education has at its heart the identification of educating the 3 main areas of man himself…….the spiritual, mental, and the physical... the central element of the Ignatian view would be the Spiritual Exercises and the Constitutions. The Ignatian education goal is to have individuals achieve “the ultimate end for which they were created.” It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment. The central study of education therefore is through the subjects which form the human identity…..humanities, theology, and philosophy.

 

...... Educationally the objective is to enable one to have interior mental freedom from societal humanism with the objective of allowing true freedom of will to live life according to the Way of the Cross.

 

....Educating the mind to think independently……to observe, digest, and reach its own conclusions…….to study history and appreciate man’s role in where man has been, is, and will go…….and from my own personal POV, to appreciate the order of creation and man’s being a creature completely dependent on the Creator and meant to live according to those principles.

 

All that is to say that I believe there is far more to forming a little person than academics. I see early childhood as precious time for mental development of a different sort.

 

So......there you go. For me the question is not whether or not it can be done. It is a completely different question. Like I stated quite simply in my earlier post, I am completely and totally biased and could careless if my 3 or 4 yr olds can read. ;)

Edited January 31, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[8filltheheart]

jenbrdsly, I prefer "see things differently." ;):001_smile:

[TheAutumnOak]

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.

 

 

 

 

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. :)

 

:iagree:

 

 

I was originally not going to respond any more to the thread b/c I believe that the issue boils down to individual values vs. any other issue. I do not "doubt" that young children can be taught to read. The issue, for me personally, is the value in "school" for very young children. It also is to the pt where responding in snippets is not a satisfactory way of communicating thoughts. But Bluegoat's response is headed in the direction my thoughts go, so here is an attempt to convey in brevity the serious of the issue from my perspective.

 

I arrived at my views from education and research, as well as large doses of personal philosophy. They weren't randomly adopted w/o thought.

 

When I was in college, I had an older professor who became my mentor. He lamented what he saw as the decline in the ability of students to "think." He believed students were good at regurgitating information but lacked the ability to make connections and form their own analysis based on their own individual evaluation of data. He urged me to research the "preschool phenomena" vs. unstructured dramatic play's influence on the cognitive development of higher order thinking skills in young children. It was that research that has partly shaped my views. (fwiw, research shows that dramatic play leads to higher cognitive skills than early academics.)

 

As I got older and had children, my views also became enmeshed in my philosophy of life. What is the purpose of life? The purpose of life from my perspective is not to create solely an academically formed individual. Life is about making connections, observations, exploring, discovering, and appreciating. From my perspective, my little children are far better served playing vs. academics for them to achieve what I want for them. (and I am not suggesting that anyone else needs to agree or even care. This is simply how I have arrived in the position I hold.) I also prefer that they listen to the elevated language of stories that I read to them vs. the simple language of little kid readers.

 

Ultimately, no, I do not believe that early "taught" readers are further ahead in the long-term. (that is to distinguish from gifted children that teach themselves to read at incredibly young ages......that is a completely different conversation.) I also believe that as society embraces and pushes for earlier and earlier academics under the premise that somehow it leads to better educated populace, that the definition of what "educated" means may mean different things to different people.

 

And that brings me back to my first post in this thread. Ignatian philosophy. Since, as usual, life is calling me to abandon any more time writing on a post, here are the relevant parts of an old post of mine on Ignatian philosophy:

 

The Jesuit definition of education has at its heart the identification of educating the 3 main areas of man himself…….the spiritual, mental, and the physical... the central element of the Ignatian view would be the Spiritual Exercises and the Constitutions. The Ignatian education goal is to have individuals achieve “the ultimate end for which they were created.†It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment. The central study of education therefore is not exclusively defined as studying Latin and Greek in being classical, but through the subjects which form the human identity…..humanities, theology, and philosophy.

 

...... Educationally the objective is to enable one to have interior mental freedom from societal humanism with the objective of allowing true freedom of will to live life according to the Way of the Cross.

 

....Educating the mind to think independently……to observe, digest, and reach its own conclusions…….to study history and appreciate man’s role in where man has been, is, and will go…….and from my own personal POV, to appreciate the order of creation and man’s being a creature completely dependent on the Creator and meant to live according to those principles.

 

All that is to say that I believe there is far more to forming a little person than academics. I see early childhood as precious time for mental development of a different sort.

 

So......there you go. For me the question is not whether or not it can be done. It is a completely different question. Like I stated quite simply in my earlier post, I am completely and totally biased and could careless if my 3 or 4 yr olds can read. ;)

 

Well said...I personally learned to read when I was 7...I didn't struggle in the slightest and was able to read on an 8th grade level by the time I was 9...

[Spy Car]

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.

 

To my mind much of this makes sense Larry, but there is one sticking point where I am of another mind. To me the "grammar" stage of education (call it what you will) involves developing a sense of how things work. So we develop the understanding of how phonemes work together to make sounds and words, how words work together to make language and how the number system works in the realm of mathematics.

 

Simply memorizing "facts", say memorizing sight words or "math facts" can seem "efficient" in the sort term, but can leap-frog over a process of learning and understanding that results in an illusion of competence.

 

Such methods, say early drill with math flashcards, may seem "efficient" in some regard, but one must ask if they short-cut "real education," which to me includes really understanding how the "grammar" of things like language and math work.

 

Generally speaking this is a problem I have with some of the emphasis of the "neo-classical" Dorothy Sayers inspired model. Even if it appears "inefficient" in some short measures i think it is far better to teach for understanding and to do it in it ways that begin developing reasoning and logical thinking skills rather than having an undue emphasis on rote memorization.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

You are going to make me actually read that book now. :tongue_smilie: I have only skimmed it at some point.

 

Oh, you would like it :D

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

With maybe one exception, I agree with everything you've said. I too would disagree with someone who had said that a simple-minded commitment to efficiency of all sorts in education, without adequate attention to the end sought. I'm glad that's not what I said, though! ;)

I tend to have long-winded responses which often diverge from what the original post I responded to actually claims; I was not trying to put into your mouth something you did not say ;), just answer a bit more broadly.

But at the end of the day, I've acquainted myself adequately with such things and decided not to use them with my child. I find the endless drumbeat of progressive educators on some of these scores (the project method, "experiential learning," etc.) obnoxious.

We agree.

On this, you (Ester) say that children should be allowed to discover things for themselves and while this might not be the most efficient (fastest) way of learning something, it is the most effective (presumably, because of superior understanding). Well, I think that depends on the field and on the age. Lots of progressives want students to follow "discovery learning" or "inquiry learning" but they end up having students attempting to prove some abstract laws of physics, for example, that none but the most brilliant of students have any chance of discovering except with quite a bit of hand-holding. Enough hand-holding and it's not "discovery learning" anymore. There are lots of things that a child simply cannot discover on his own--facts about history and geography, for example. They have to be told, and the more clearly and directly, the better.

I am actually extremely against these things. I do not think that each generation should reinvent the wheel and I absolutely agree with you that attempting to focus on "high level thinking skills" and "manipulation" the information one does not have has been one of the greatest mistakes of the pedagogical fits of the past century.

 

What I am arguing, however, is that sometimes those "less than efficient" approaches do develop some other important skills (problem solving, etc.) and systematizing things efficiently (which you can if you know what you teach) is not necessarily better than letting kids struggle a little. It is a balance. Sometimes time which seems "wasted" would better be described as "invested" into some other things. I think downtime and leisure, even of an academic kind, and allowing things to sink in, sometimes goes a long way even in developing academic skills. Balance.

When students get older, like college philosophy students, then yeah--you can expect them to think things through for themselves. But they can't do that effectively until they've seen many, many instances of teachers (or authors of books, or whatever) thinking things through. It makes sense in philosophy, so I know just what you mean.

I am low-key on philosophy with my kids before upper high school (the system within which I grew up typically "saves" philosophy for the ages 16-19). I mostly do ancients and very basic Judaics, nothing elaborated.

If they are too young to make a certain type of connection, theoretically I can explain it and they will get it. However, I doubt that this is always the *optimal* choice. I often judge that it is better to let it go, then go back to the same text half a year, a year later and see if there is a leap in understanding. So, I sacrifice efficiency - for the sake of effectiveness when they can make that connection on their own... Plus I think there is an inherent value in growing up a little with some thoughts and problems somewhere at the back of your mind, without having somebody "take all the fun out of it" (for lack of a better expression) by delivering you a lecture on it when you are very young, just to be able to promote you on further and further texts.

 

I was actually disappointed when after quinquae viae (something I actually did decide to "cover" with the kids upon their questioning on a similar topic) my daughter discovered Russell. I would have preferred for her to think it through on her own first, read some more texts from the epoch, maybe write her own thoughts, and then some years down the line discover Russell. Stuff like that. These are stuff where I am willing to sacrifice some efficiency for the sake of the process.

Sometimes, asking questions is the best way to conduce to understanding. Other times, that's silly and the only way is to have the students, say, read a book very carefully. If we can make a generalization, it's that direction instruction works best for younger children and when the subject matter is purely factual, while the inquiry method works best for older students and when the subject matter is highly complex and open to interpretation.

Agreed.

[ElizaG]

Justmouse mentioned the McLuhan book. It's not really about classical education per se, but more about the trivium as a framework for understanding Western intellectual history. It's a very challenging read, due to the wide range of somewhat obscure cultural references -- to grasp what he's talking about, you either have to be 12 Ester Marias ;), or be willing to follow a lot of rabbit trails -- but at least it's much more straightforward than some of his later work on mass media.

 

[ETA: In his later books,] McLuhan would link the quest for efficiency to the highly visual, linear culture that (he believed) developed after the advent of printed media. He considered this to be typical of the American approach to education, because the country was founded by people who made heavy use of printed books in everyday life. Think the Bible, Webster's Speller, etc.

 

In addition [ETA: and this isn't specifically McLuhan here; others have said this], with large-scale immigration and Western expansion, there weren't enough qualified teachers who could provide the sort of largely oral, heavily teacher-dependent instruction that was typical of traditional classical education. So the teachers used manuals, and the students used textbooks, and there was a lot of rote learning. The iconic old-fashioned schoolhouse was likely better than what we have now -- and of course, it offered a decent education to everyone, not just the especially privileged -- but in terms of pedagogy, it had its drawbacks.

 

There were some schools that worked on more of an elite European model, such as Boston Latin and the Jesuit schools. They were either for the wealthy, or dependent on a steady supply of teachers who were highly educated but would work for next to nothing (i.e., priests and religious).

 

Those experiences are what give them the ability to later really grasp the abstractions and second hand experiences they will get in their formal education. Trying to develop relations with abstractions is most often a waste of time and, dare I say, inefficient.

 

I think that when Charlotte Mason tells us that "education is the science of relations" she is saying something very important

This actually takes me back to McLuhan's book on the trivium. He talks about how grammar is about making connections, and dialectics is about making divisions. To put it another way, dialectics is about concepts, while grammar is about percepts. Although the "integrated trivium" should be the ideal, he believed that most scholars -- and most historical eras -- tended to emphasize either a grammatical or a dialectical approach to communication, at the expense of the other.

 

He saw himself as a grammarian, operating in a poetic mode -- which made some of his later books incomprehensible at times, especially to people who were expecting a dialectical argument (i.e., most people).

 

People who are familiar with John Senior's work will realize that this fits right in with his concept of "poetic knowledge," which has been discussed elsewhere on the boards.

 

So anyway, not exactly a practical "how and what to teach" manual. And if some people here decided to have an abstract discussion of how his ideas might relate to homeschooling, I suspect that there would be a high chance of evisceration (apt description). :lol: But maybe it would be worth trying some time.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Eleanor
clarification x2

[Ester Maria]

Oh, you would like it :D

 

Bill

I actually first heard of it here, I think.

 

Where I come from, we are very un-apologetical about classical education because it goes without saying that it is *the* education.

 

Several of my friends vetoed scientific lycees for their children ever since they reduced the hours of Latin in general scientific lycees, and completely cut it out of the program in those with the program of applied sciences. A lycee without at least Latin is not worthy of the title lycee, y'know? :lol:

[Spy Car]

I actually first heard of it here, I think.

 

Where I come from, we are very un-apologetical about classical education because it goes without saying that it is *the* education.

 

Several of my friends vetoed scientific lycees for their children ever since they reduced the hours of Latin in general scientific lycees, and completely cut it out of the program in those with the program of applied sciences. A lycee without at least Latin is not worthy of the title lycee, y'know? :lol:

 

And here I thought a "lycee" school was one where one had to worry about little critters reproducing in their children's hair :tongue_smilie:

 

It is all nit-picking to me :D

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

And here I thought a "lycee" school was one where one had to worry about little critters reproducing in their children's hair :tongue_smilie:

 

It is all nit-picking to me :D

 

Bill

They cannot do math in those schools, though, so you would not like them.

You enter them in "4th year" and graduate them after five years in "3rd year". Really. :lol:

[justamouse]

While I love board-member Justamouse to pieces (despite this suggestion :tongue_smilie:) I loathed reading Climbing Parnassus.

 

Tracy Lee Simmons has an awfully bloated opinion of himself, and his "anyone who hasn't mastered both Greek and Latin is an ignorant twit, and don't try because you are not Tracy Lee Simmons" approach was beyond off-putting to me.

 

Bill

 

I have a deep, abiding affection for arrogant males. ;) Sometimes they make me laugh, oftentimes I like to poke them with sharp sticks, but they are always entertaining and many times I learn a thing or two. :001_smile: So, I actually really enjoyed it. Love you to pieces, too. :D

 

 

 

So anyway, not exactly a practical "how and what to teach" manual. And if some people here decided to have an abstract discussion of how his ideas might relate to homeschooling, I suspect that there would be a high chance of evisceration (apt description). :lol: But maybe it would be worth trying some time.

 

I love Senior. Now I MUST get it. I wonder how much coffee I'll need to drink to wake the gerbil up so I can understand it.

 

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

 

I'll let you borrow it when I'm done. :D

Edited January 31, 2012 by justamouse

[jenbrdsly]

When I was in college, I had an older professor who became my mentor. He lamented what he saw as the decline in the ability of students to "think." He believed students were good at regurgitating information but lacked the ability to make connections and form their own analysis based on their own individual evaluation of data. He urged me to research the "preschool phenomena" vs. unstructured dramatic play's influence on the cognitive development of higher order thinking skills in young children. It was that research that has partly shaped my views. (fwiw, research shows that dramatic play leads to higher cognitive skills than early academics.)

 

 

This really made me think of Stanford's Bing Nursery school. Each classroom is huge, and has about 2 acres of playground to boot. It is almost all unstructured play time except for snack, and the very end of the three hour day when they read a book. (At least that's how it used to be ten years ago.)

They have lots of extra things there that a lot of houses wouldn't, like chickens, wood and tools, the largest collection of unit blocks etc. The whole philosophy of the school is play based learning. The teachers and professors who work there actively discourage parents from doing anything academic with their children at home, except reading books together.

The weird thing though, is that every once in a while the Stanford Psych professors come and use the kids as guinea pigs in their experiments. It's where the famous "marshmallow experiment" happened, for example. They also occasionally have psychology students (like I was once) follow a child around once a week, taking a running record of what the child is doing, so that the teacher and parents can learn more about the child.

Anyhow, I wish you could see Bing 8FilltheHeart, because you might make an exception for it. :tongue_smilie:

I of course, have left my Bing training and gone down the Montessori path.

[justamouse]

I don't know what I think about the early reading, because I know Maria Montessori had great success with teaching children to read early, and her first students were destitute.

[jenbrdsly]

I don't know what I think about the early reading, because I know Maria Montessori had great success with teaching children to read early, and her first students were destitute.

Exactly.

[Spy Car]

ly adopted w/o thought.

 

When I was in college, I had an older professor who became my mentor. He lamented what he saw as the decline in the ability of students to "think." He believed students were good at regurgitating information but lacked the ability to make connections and form their own analysis based on their own individual evaluation of data. He urged me to research the "preschool phenomena" vs. unstructured dramatic play's influence on the cognitive development of higher order thinking skills in young children. It was that research that has partly shaped my views. (fwiw, research shows that dramatic play leads to higher cognitive skills than early academics.)

 

 

This assumes that all preschools are focused on early academics. I know that my son went to a co-op nursery school that focused on fostering opportunities for creative play in an environment that included parents. He, my wife, and I developed a wide circle of friends that remain important people in our lives, and he had opportunities for the sorts of dramatic play that he would not have enjoyed at home being an only child.

 

Bill

[8filltheheart]

I tend to have long-winded responses which often diverge from what the original post I responded to actually claims; I was not trying to put into your mouth something you did not say ;), just answer a bit more broadly.

 

We agree.

 

I am actually extremely against these things. I do not think that each generation should reinvent the wheel and I absolutely agree with you that attempting to focus on "high level thinking skills" and "manipulation" the information one does not have has been one of the greatest mistakes of the pedagogical fits of the past century.

 

What I am arguing, however, is that sometimes those "less than efficient" approaches do develop some other important skills (problem solving, etc.) and systematizing things efficiently (which you can if you know what you teach) is not necessarily better than letting kids struggle a little. It is a balance. Sometimes time which seems "wasted" would better be described as "invested" into some other things. I think downtime and leisure, even of an academic kind, and allowing things to sink in, sometimes goes a long way even in developing academic skills. Balance.

 

I am low-key on philosophy with my kids before upper high school (the system within which I grew up typically "saves" philosophy for the ages 16-19). I mostly do ancients and very basic Judaics, nothing elaborated.

If they are too young to make a certain type of connection, theoretically I can explain it and they will get it. However, I doubt that this is always the *optimal* choice. I often judge that it is better to let it go, then go back to the same text half a year, a year later and see if there is a leap in understanding. So, I sacrifice efficiency - for the sake of effectiveness when they can make that connection on their own... Plus I think there is an inherent value in growing up a little with some thoughts and problems somewhere at the back of your mind, without having somebody "take all the fun out of it" (for lack of a better expression) by delivering you a lecture on it when you are very young, just to be able to promote you on further and further texts.

 

I was actually disappointed when after quinquae viae (something I actually did decide to "cover" with the kids upon their questioning on a similar topic) my daughter discovered Russell. I would have preferred for her to think it through on her own first, read some more texts from the epoch, maybe write her own thoughts, and then some years down the line discover Russell. Stuff like that. These are stuff where I am willing to sacrifice some efficiency for the sake of the process.

 

Agreed.

 

EM, are you thinking along these lines?

 

". . .each time one prematurely teaches a child something he could have discovered for himself, that child is kept from inventing it and, consequently, from understanding it completely."

 

-Jean Piaget

[8filltheheart]

This really made me think of Stanford's Bing Nursery school. Each classroom is huge, and has about 2 acres of playground to boot. It is almost all unstructured play time except for snack, and the very end of the three hour day when they read a book. (At least that's how it used to be ten years ago.)

They have lots of extra things there that a lot of houses wouldn't, like chickens, wood and tools, the largest collection of unit blocks etc. The whole philosophy of the school is play based learning. The teachers and professors who work there actively discourage parents from doing anything academic with their children at home, except reading books together.

The weird thing though, is that every once in a while the Stanford Psych professors come and use the kids as guinea pigs in their experiments. It's where the famous "marshmallow experiment" happened, for example. They also occasionally have psychology students (like I was once) follow a child around once a week, taking a running record of what the child is doing, so that the teacher and parents can learn more about the child.

Anyhow, I wish you could see Bing 8FilltheHeart, because you might make an exception for it. :tongue_smilie:

I of course, have left my Bing training and gone down the Montessori path.

 

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. :001_smile:

 

This issue of preschool (including bill's post here) is one where we are just going to have to see the issue differently. For one reason, any preschool is going to be lacking one of the most important elements for the nurturing environment that I see vital for the most optimal early childhood experience.....mom. (I know it is not realistic for all moms. I also know that some homes are not optimal. But, my posts are strictly from my POV for my children. ;) ) Also, by the very nature of preschool (though the Bing program seems in a league of its own), structure and guidance are how they function. It might not be what a parent might see as "academics" or "direction," but having put myself through college by working in preschools, they are also not freedom to do what ever sort of exploring the child wants to do, nor is it being completely reliant upon oneself for amusement Preschool precludes the need fill up one's own time w/complete imagination and self-structure. Many children completely lack the skill of being able to be 100% happy by themselves w/o something "to do," "entertain," or "occupy them."

 

I'm glad, Bill, that your ds had a wonderful experience and that your family made long term friends. It is what was you wanted for your family. Unfortunately, I do worry that the day may be coming that my option will no longer simply exist simply b/c my child is under 5 w/o some law regulating it.

[jplain]

This really made me think of Stanford's Bing Nursery school.

I went to Bing thirty-five years ago. :) It was a wonderful place to be a kid.

The marshmallow experiments amused me, because even at age 4 I was aware of the one-way mirror.:lol:

[OrdinaryTime]

Gosh, where to begin. Thanks to everyone for the lively debate and thoughtful responses!

 

 

By the way, @OrdinaryTime--that doesn't say that efficiency is a measuring stick for a solid education. I didn't discuss the goal of education, but the means of education. If you're disagreeing with with me that knowledge is the primary goal of education, saying that ultimately it's character-building, then your complaint is not about my principle but the assumptions about educational goals I make in applying the principle.

 

 

I wasn't saying that a liberal arts education's end is "character-building." But neither do I think think it is simply "the development of academic knowledge and skills (to include a broad and deep comprehension of Western civilization and science a.k.a. liberal arts)," as you state in your post. IMHO, this is close to a good definition, but just slightly doesn't go the whole way. I don't find that liberal arts education's end to simply be the development of the intellect, but of the whole person. The development of the intellect must trickle over into the person's affections and ultimately into one's will, leading to a basic order and harmony in the total person. The person does not learn to just know truth; they learn to love it. They do not just know the beautiful when they see it; they enjoy it. They do not just know what justice is; they hunger and thirst for it. One's education should not simply be the accumlation of knowledge and shaping of the intellect, but the formation of whole person in light of that knowledge.

 

I suppose the distinction between these two ends is what made me bristle a bit at the use of the word efficient, even though I agree with many of the actual educational practices in your list (individualized instruction, living books, studying the classics, etc.). I am not primarily choosing to use some of these methods because they are an efficient way to gain knowledge (though that is often a lovely bonus), but because I believe these methods help knowlege move along into my children's affections and, hopefully, into their wills. Efficiency seems to be a term more fitted to simply accumlating knowledge, not forming a human being to contemplate the truth and then integrating that truth into oneself.

 

And I know I'm likely way out of my league here, but I wanted to be clear I wasn't just talking about "character-building!"

[serendipitous journey]

... The person does not learn to just know truth; they learn to love it. They do not just know the beautiful when they see it; they enjoy it. They do not just know what justice is; they hunger and thirst for it. One's education should not simply be the accumulation of knowledge and shaping of the intellect, but the formation of whole person in light of that knowledge. ...

 

This made me happy :). I've been following this thread quietly (stalking it???) My goals for our homeschool -- the educational element of our home -- are for the children to understand well, to love deeply, and to take joy in their world and its inhabitants. So :)

[kubiac]

Fascinating thread. Ya'll are smart.

 

Just one note on preschool: Around here (West Los Angeles), I've noticed that the fancier and more privileged the preschool, the less academic it is. The rich kids go to play-based schools with lots of art and mud pies without a number line or alphabet block in sight, and the less-privileged children a few miles away go to Genius Tots Academic Daycare in a sad stucco building plastered with faded ABC-123 murals.

 

Is it wrong that I suspect that the rich kids are afforded the privilege of the brain-building pleasures of a "play-based preschool" because they are simultaneously provided with enriched home environments? I just seriously doubt that most of these kids are living in a completely Waldorf-style academic vacuum, because from what I've seen locally, they typically emerge on the scene of kindergarten extremely well-prepared for the intellectual demands of formal school.

 

Meanwhile, Larry's original post has left me retroactively resentful of the hours of my life wasted in the likes of mandatory "Health" and "Career Planning" classes. Grrr...

Edited February 1, 2012 by kubiac

[Spy Car]

Fascinating thread. Ya'll are smart.

 

Just one note on preschool: Around here (West Los Angeles), I've noticed that the fancier and more privileged the preschool, the less academic it is. The rich kids go to play-based schools with lots of art and mud pies without a number line or alphabet block in sight, and the less-privileged children a few miles away go to Genius Tots Academic Daycare in a sad stucco building plastered with faded ABC-123 murals.

 

Is it wrong that I suspect that the rich kids are afforded the privilege of the brain-building pleasures of a "play-based preschool" because they are simultaneously provided with enriched home environments? I just seriously doubt that most of these kids are living in a completely Waldorf-style academic vacuum, because from what I've seen locally, they typically emerge on the scene of kindergarten extremely well-prepared for the intellectual demands of formal school.

 

Meanwhile, Larry's original post has left me retroactively resentful of the hours of my life wasted in the likes of mandatory "Health" and "Career Planning" classes. Grrr...

 

I think you are seeing things the same way I do over the hill (in Encino) where most children go to "play-based preschools" (aka "developmental preschools) but get the pre-academic enrichment skills at home. While in communities where the children are less likely to have work on pre-academic skills as a normal part of home life the preschools attempt to fill some of that void.

 

Either way, it's my observation that children tend to get a great deal of good from their nursery school experience.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

BTW, I think the lampooning of the "discovery method" is a serious mistake.

 

The best discovery oriented programs are unsurpassed in developing high level thinking skills. Programs that provide just enough information not to frustrate children but still require them to use their critical faculties to think, reason, and problem-solve are much more rewarding over-all that those that simply spoon-feed.

 

There are, of course, times for Direct Instruction, but one acts to the detriment of a child's education if one removes the discovery aspect from their learning experience based on ideological or ill-concieved pedagogical reasons.

 

Bill

[jenbrdsly]

I went to Bing thirty-five years ago. :) It was a wonderful place to be a kid.

The marshmallow experiments amused me, because even at age 4 I was aware of the one-way mirror.:lol:

 

Wow! That is really cool!

Of course, the big question is... Did you eat the marshmallow?

:tongue_smilie:

[Ester Maria]

EM, are you thinking along these lines?

 

". . .each time one prematurely teaches a child something he could have discovered for himself, that child is kept from inventing it and, consequently, from understanding it completely."

 

-Jean Piaget

In a way, yes. The key word here is "prematurely", however, and I do recognize that it can mean wildly different things for different children. *While* respecting one's individual development, though, I think one should still take this into account - but I do agree with Larry's general feelings about the younger age being more suited for more direct instruction and acquiring a factual basis of knowledge (I was never one of those people that push essays in second grade or "higher order thinking skills" before one can reasonably do it), while a more problem-solving approach is more suitable for later ages. I think it also differs greatly from field to field, some areas are more and some are less suited for it, I tend to mix and match approaches and materials, aiming at giving my kids a wide range of academic skills, including both "figuring it out on your own" *and* being capable of following a neat elaboration by somebody else. I typically have kids work on something themselves first, and then we have discussion sessions where I see what amount of my additional guidance or explicit instruction is needed. Explicit instruction is often a shortcut to many things, but I tend to save that tool for *summarizing* things and going in breadth - typically I opt for the process of figuring things out, and then estimating which my additional knowledges I should share with DC at which point.

[ekfk]

Spy Car,

 

One of the reasons Discovery Learning is often criticized is because there is a lot of evidence that it doesn't actually work. Kids are often so distracted by the discovery aspect that they don't actually learn what they are supposed to. Working memory can get so overwhelmed that there is no room left for what is actually supposed to be learned. If kids aren't learning then they lack the knowledge they actually need to think and problem solve, since thinking and problem solving require related knowledge and experience.

 

For example, general problem solving skills won't help a lawyer figure out how to win a case or an electrician figure out why an electrical outlet stopped working. They need knowledge to actually solve these problems. The same holds for critical thinking skills. Students should be taught how to think critically. But those skills will be largely useless without a base of related knowledge.

 

I know some people say that if it is actually done right, Discovery Learning is effective. That would seem to indicate that if it can possibly be effective but often isn't then it is really hard to actually do right.

 

This is an overview of some studies on Discovery Learning. Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.

 

I also disagree that direct instruction is spoon feeding. It is giving kids the knowledge they actually need to think, reason and problem solve. It is also easy to engage kids in discussions about things you teach and get them to think about what they are learning. And it makes lessons more fun.

[justamouse]

BTW, I think the lampooning of the "discovery method" is a serious mistake.

 

The best discovery oriented programs are unsurpassed in developing high level thinking skills. Programs that provide just enough information not to frustrate children but still require them to use their critical faculties to think, reason, and problem-solve are much more rewarding over-all that those that simply spoon-feed.

 

There are, of course, times for Direct Instruction, but one acts to the detriment of a child's education if one removes the discovery aspect from their learning experience based on ideological or ill-concieved pedagogical reasons.

 

Bill

 

I see your point (INFJ here, it's all gray), because when we see kids discover, they then own what they know and that's an explosive moment for people.

 

But I also see the reinventing the wheel aspect. And I really hate reinventing the wheel, and if anything, I think my own lack of education is one, big oversize gulp of reinventing the wheel (so I could be projecting). Not in content, but in connections.

 

We're not talking, "Look, blue and yellow make green!" We're talking about Western civilization and liberal arts.

[Spy Car]

Spy Car,

 

One of the reasons Discovery Learning is often criticized is because there is a lot of evidence that it doesn't actually work. Kids are often so distracted by the discovery aspect that they don't actually learn what they are supposed to. Working memory can get so overwhelmed that there is no room left for what is actually supposed to be learned. If kids aren't learning then they lack the knowledge they actually need to think and problem solve, since thinking and problem solving require related knowledge and experience.

 

For example, general problem solving skills won't help a lawyer figure out how to win a case or an electrician figure out why an electrical outlet stopped working. They need knowledge to actually solve these problems. The same holds for critical thinking skills. Students should be taught how to think critically. But those skills will be largely useless without a base of related knowledge.

 

I know some people say that if it is actually done right, Discovery Learning is effective. That would seem to indicate that if it can possibly be effective but often isn't then it is really hard to actually do right.

 

This is an overview of some studies on Discovery Learning. Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.

 

I also disagree that direct instruction is spoon feeding. It is giving kids the knowledge they actually need to think, reason and problem solve. It is also easy to engage kids in discussions about things you teach and get them to think about what they are learning. And it makes lessons more fun.

 

The home education programs that employ elements of "discovery method" bear nothing in common with "minimal guidance" as criticized in the linked article. This is a case of creating a "straw man" and defeating it.

 

It is counter-productive to lampoon methods that be very rewarding by lumping approaches that have little to nothing in common together because they in-some-measure have discovery aspects in common.

 

For example, the Art of Problem Solving mathematics program is generally recognized as one of (if not the) most high-level math programs available. It is a "discovery" program. That Everyday Mathematics might be classified a discovery program doesn't mean AoPS is a failure.

 

I (and many other parents on this forum) have witnessed how effective the Miquon Math Lab approach is in promoting mathematical thinking in young people. It is not a program with "minimal guidance" (the reverse is the case), but it does capitalize on engaging children's powers of reasoning so they are participants in the learning process and not just "passive" players.

 

Is there a role of Direct Instruction in education? Of course!

 

But removing discovery methods from ones quiver because some so-called discovery programs have done it wrong is nonsensical.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I see your point (INFJ here, it's all gray), because when we see kids discover, they then own what they know and that's an explosive moment for people.

 

But I also see the reinventing the wheel aspect. And I really hate reinventing the wheel, and if anything, I think my own lack of education is one, big oversize gulp of reinventing the wheel (so I could be projecting). Not in content, but in connections.

 

We're not talking, "Look, blue and yellow make green!" We're talking about Western civilization and liberal arts.

 

Let me give you a small example that I have shared before (so some might want to skip).

 

Sometime early in my son's math exploration (somewhere in the 4-5 range) he was playing with his Cuisenaire Rods, when he called over with an excited voice and said:

 

Daddy, 3 and 2 is the same as 2 and 3.

 

I said wow, look at that! Will it work for other combinations of numbers. He said "I don't know, but I'll find out" and he proceed to try other values and proved to himself they worked the same way.

 

Then I told him that he had made an important mathematical discovery, one mathematicians call the "Commutitive Law." From that day forward (to today) the Commutitive Property of Addition is a concept "he owns."

 

Since then he has learned to employ the Commutitive Property, the Distributive Property, and the Associative Property to problem-solve. Not only getting correct "answers" but having the mathematical understanding to explain and justify his answers on mathematical principals.

 

In recent week I have been working in the AoPS Prealgebra book, and have shared some of the materials in the introductory chapter which covers these same basic principles and he totally gets it (at 7.5).

 

When people conflate effective discover methods with programs that are not effective I need to call "bull." I recall the words of Groucho Marx, who once said, "who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

 

This does not mean there isn't a great role for Direct Instruction. But why limit ourselves needlessly when there is more than one way to effectively learn and teach?

 

Bill

[ekfk]

Spy Car,

 

Home education is a lot different because it is one-on-one. The parent can provide all the guidance and scaffolding the child needs to ask learn something. But that is often more of a hybrid between direct instruction and discovery rather than pure discovery.

 

Discovery learning in classroom environments has been found to be largely ineffective. It doesn't seem to be so much a case of "some" being ineffective. The problem is with the approach. I have researched the project method but that also seems to be quite ineffective compared to a more direct instruction approach.

 

This is not to say that a child should never figure anything out for themselves or never do a project or never do any kind of discovery learning. It is just a mistake to make these methods a main focus of a child's education. It is far more effective for a child to be taught a concept first and then given problems to solve or a useful research project that will actually reinforce the concepts they have learned.

 

We have to educate our kids based on evidence of what works and what doesn't even if that means putting aside methods we may personally like.

[jenbrdsly]

The home education programs that employ elements of "discovery method" bear nothing in common with "minimal guidance" as criticized in the linked article. This is a case of creating a "straw man" and defeating it.

 

It is counter-productive to lampoon methods that be very rewarding by lumping approaches that have little to nothing in common together because they in-some-measure have discovery aspects in common.

 

For example, the Art of Problem Solving mathematics program is generally recognized as one of (if not the) most high-level math programs available. It is a "discovery" program. That Everyday Mathematics might be classified a discovery program doesn't mean AoPS is a failure.

 

I (and many other parents on this forum) have witnessed how effective the Miquon Math Lab approach is in promoting mathematical thinking in young people. It is not a program with "minimal guidance" (the reverse is the case), but it does capitalize on engaging children's powers of reasoning so they are participants in the learning process and not just "passive" players.

 

Is there a role of Direct Instruction in education? Of course!

 

But removing discovery methods from ones quiver because some so-called discovery programs have done it wrong is nonsensical.

 

Bill

 

 

The same could be said with Hands On Equations. It is truly amazing.

[Bluegoat]

Spy Car,

 

Home education is a lot different because it is one-on-one. The parent can provide all the guidance and scaffolding the child needs to ask learn something. But that is often more of a hybrid between direct instruction and discovery rather than pure discovery.

 

Discovery learning in classroom environments has been found to be largely ineffective. It doesn't seem to be so much a case of "some" being ineffective. The problem is with the approach. I have researched the project method but that also seems to be quite ineffective compared to a more direct instruction approach.

 

This is not to say that a child should never figure anything out for themselves or never do a project or never do any kind of discovery learning. It is just a mistake to make these methods a main focus of a child's education. It is far more effective for a child to be taught a concept first and then given problems to solve or a useful research project that will actually reinforce the concepts they have learned.

 

We have to educate our kids based on evidence of what works and what doesn't even if that means putting aside methods we may personally like.

 

 

I don't think that "discovery learning" has much to do at all with allowing children the space to develop relationships with the objects of study before or rather than offering them abstracted and broken down versions of whatever it is.

 

Discovery learning seems often to be just as artificial as any other "spoon-fed" method for one thing, and often it seems to be done as group work which tends, IMO, to actually stifle discovery and creative ways of thinking about things.

 

What I am thinking of isn't really about developing "problem solving skills" though that can be a result in some cases. It is more like the difference between deciding to study Shakespere and so actually diving into the plays and poems, or just looking through Cole's Notes or having the teacher lecture about the plays. Too much instruction too soon can actually obscure the object of study.

 

Another example of this that comes to mind was a comment by the naturalist Gerald Durrell, talking about the students he was getting in his later years. He said something to the effect that many of them could tell you lots about cell respiration, but they didn't know the difference between toad and frog and newt spawn, because they had never actually gone looking for it in a ditch. I think that in the most meaningful sense, those students did not really know the thing they were studying - it was only an abstraction to them.

 

This is the advantage of giving students the time - and I think also the solitude and space - to contemplate things and think out the implications of what they have experienced or learned and to interact with the actual objects of study. They are making the subject their own, and testing what they know and seeing how far they can push it.

 

Of course no student is likely to infer the periodic table - they need direct instruction at times. But more I think is not always better, as it eats into the time for real (not artificial) exploration.

[ekfk]

Bluegoat,

 

"Another example of this that comes to mind was a comment by the naturalist Gerald Durrell, talking about the students he was getting in his later years. He said something to the effect that many of them could tell you lots about cell respiration, but they didn't know the difference between toad and frog and newt spawn, because they had never actually gone looking for it in a ditch."

 

You are describing the difference between shallow and deep knowledge. Often in schools, kids are taught way more content than they can easily absorb within a short time period. Or they are jumping from unrelated concept to unrelated concept and building only a superficial understanding.

 

That's why I'm a big believer in teaching knowledge from an early age. Kids can learn a little over a long period of time. Over the years, a little adds up to a lot. I also believe in staying on related concepts over a long period of time, so kids can really develop understanding.

 

Also, studies have found that students who are new to a subject benefit most from a direct instruction approach. As their knowledge advances hands on approaches start to become much more effective and direct instruction methods less effective. So, to really build understanding, students need to build a foundation first and then start learning how to apply their knowledge.

 

It seems that schools either try to do the hands on without the foundational knowledge or they depend too much on direct instruction and ignore the application side. Another problem is multiple choice questions which typically test memorization of definitions rather than true understanding. Students often don't have to understand to do well on a test, so many of them don't bother to try.

[kristinannie]

I was originally not going to respond any more to the thread b/c I believe that the issue boils down to individual values vs. any other issue. I do not "doubt" that young children can be taught to read. The issue, for me personally, is the value in "school" for very young children. It also is to the pt where responding in snippets is not a satisfactory way of communicating thoughts. But Bluegoat's response is headed in the direction my thoughts go, so here is an attempt to convey in brevity the seriousness of the issue from my perspective.

 

I arrived at my views from education and research, as well as large doses of personal philosophy. They weren't randomly adopted w/o thought.

 

When I was in college, I had an older professor who became my mentor. He lamented what he saw as the decline in the ability of students to "think." He believed students were good at regurgitating information but lacked the ability to make connections and form their own analysis based on their own individual evaluation of data. He urged me to research the "preschool phenomena" vs. unstructured dramatic play's influence on the cognitive development of higher order thinking skills in young children. It was that research that has partly shaped my views. (fwiw, research shows that dramatic play leads to higher cognitive skills than early academics.)

 

As I got older and had children, my views also became enmeshed in my philosophy of life. What is the purpose of life? The purpose of life from my perspective is not to create solely an academically formed individual. Life is about making connections, observations, exploring, discovering, and appreciating. From my perspective, my little children are far better served playing vs. academics for them to achieve what I want for them. (and I am not suggesting that anyone else needs to agree or even care. This is simply how I have arrived at the position I hold.) I also prefer that they listen to the elevated language of stories that I read to them vs. the simple language of little kid readers.

 

Ultimately, no, I do not believe that early "taught" readers are further ahead in the long-term. (that is to distinguish from gifted children that teach themselves to read at incredibly young ages......that is a completely different conversation.) I also believe that as society embraces and pushes for earlier and earlier academics under the premise that somehow it leads to better educated populace, that the definition of what "educated" means may mean different things to different people.

 

And that brings me back to my first post in this thread. Ignatian philosophy. Since, as usual, life is calling me to abandon any more time writing on a post, here are the relevant parts of an old post of mine on Ignatian philosophy:

 

The Jesuit definition of education has at its heart the identification of educating the 3 main areas of man himself…….the spiritual, mental, and the physical... the central element of the Ignatian view would be the Spiritual Exercises and the Constitutions. The Ignatian education goal is to have individuals achieve “the ultimate end for which they were created.†It is through the interior mental freedom that the spiritual life begins its fulfillment. The central study of education therefore is through the subjects which form the human identity…..humanities, theology, and philosophy.

 

...... Educationally the objective is to enable one to have interior mental freedom from societal humanism with the objective of allowing true freedom of will to live life according to the Way of the Cross.

 

....Educating the mind to think independently……to observe, digest, and reach its own conclusions…….to study history and appreciate man’s role in where man has been, is, and will go…….and from my own personal POV, to appreciate the order of creation and man’s being a creature completely dependent on the Creator and meant to live according to those principles.

 

All that is to say that I believe there is far more to forming a little person than academics. I see early childhood as precious time for mental development of a different sort.

 

So......there you go. For me the question is not whether or not it can be done. It is a completely different question. Like I stated quite simply in my earlier post, I am completely and totally biased and could careless if my 3 or 4 yr olds can read. ;)

 

 

 

:iagree: While I do plan on following a Classical format (heavily CM) with my children, I think it is just as, if not more, important to raise them up to be what God intends them to be. So, my plans will be based on the needs of my individual children.

 

I don't want to get ugly, but unless a child is begging to learn to read, I don't understand teaching them to read when they are 1 or 2 years old. I am sure there is research to back that up, but I will not be doing that in my household.

[Spy Car]

Spy Car,

 

Home education is a lot different because it is one-on-one.

 

Correct, but this is a home education forum (generally speaking) and we are discussing home education methods in particular. In this context discovery methods have a role.

 

The parent can provide all the guidance and scaffolding the child needs to ask learn something. But that is often more of a hybrid between direct instruction and discovery rather than pure discovery.

 

No one (certainly not I) proposes a child be left to him or herself to discover nuclear fusion on his or her own. This is a "lampooned" depiction of what discovery methods involve and the mischarecterization is damaging, because it undermines the use of a valid educational tool.

 

Discovery learning in classroom environments has been found to be largely ineffective. It doesn't seem to be so much a case of "some" being ineffective. The problem is with the approach. I have researched the project method but that also seems to be quite ineffective compared to a more direct instruction approach.

 

No you're wrong. Some programs that are called "discovery" are just plain bad programs. They fail just like bad direct instruction programs fail. I agree that in the main for a "discovery" approach to work it takes great parent/teacher involvement and that sort of support is beyond the capacity of many schools.

 

But home educators have the advantage here of being able to employ techniques that schools that need to educate a "mass" of children are less capable of doing well. But why give the advantages of a one-on-one tutoring environment away? It is illogical not to seize on the advantages one-on-one methods offer, and this includes using discovery methods where they are effective.

 

This is not to say that a child should never figure anything out for themselves or never do a project or never do any kind of discovery learning. It is just a mistake to make these methods a main focus of a child's education. It is far more effective for a child to be taught a concept first and then given problems to solve or a useful research project that will actually reinforce the concepts they have learned.

 

Some of best educational programs available for home education do not spoon-feeding children, but instead provide part of equation and let them reach for for the answer. Then the programs deconstruct the answers. AoPs is built on this model (and it is arguably most advanced high school math program there is) and one could argue (I would) that MCT has this same sort of discovery method intrinsic in it's method.

 

We have to educate our kids based on evidence of what works and what doesn't even if that means putting aside methods we may personally like.

 

Exactly my point!

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

The same could be said with Hands On Equations. It is truly amazing.

 

Right. Again these are the same sort of very effective means that some would dismiss for ideological reasons. Means that practically minded home educators know work from their own first-hand experience with their children.

 

Why, oh why, oh why, should home educators give up some of the best educational tools available because some public schools have had failures implementing bad programs in a classroom setting????

 

I don't get it!

 

Bill