pehp Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I would love a little input from those of you who are more experienced and seasoned than I am. My son is turning 5 in June--so we're not facing 'crunch time,' but I am researching and thinking a lot about educational philosophies. As we embark upon homeschooling I am deeply drawn to both Charlotte Mason and classical education--I visualize some sort of combination of the two. I am a total bookworm, and I'm sure that is why. :) I have read TWTM, of course. I've also read several 'interpretations' of CM's philosophy but soon will be hunkering right down on my kindle with the real deal. One question that keeps rising in my mind is how science is handled as the child progresses....I have the feeling that my son will be a math/science boy (my husband is an engineer, and our son is clearly already a very mechanically-oriented thinker)--and I think that living books are VITAL even if you become a scientist....but I know science in CM's day and science today are rather different. And when I read Educating the Wholehearted Child (which is simply Sally Clarkson's explanation of how she homeschooled her children....mostly via a CM method), I was extremely unimpressed--nay, even displeased!--by the 'lite' approach she took to sciences. (I remember reading something like "we are raising wholehearted people, not scientists"--as though those things are incongruent?!) Frankly I was totally turned off by that comment, and I love Sally Clarkson generally. So I think--does doing this CM approach preclude my child from pursuing the hard sciences??? But then I read Arthur Robinson--and he's a kook, no doubt, but his children--from what I can tell--basically did a ton of math and a ton of reading from living books, and yet they excel in the maths/sciences. (I don't subscribe to everything he says, obviously, one must separate the wheat from the chaff, but the results speak for themselves.) I do think that TWTM trains a child to think critically--and that is the basis of everything. (Do you think CM also trains a child similarly? I am really unfamiliar with the older grades when it comes to CM.) So perhaps it's not so much about a focus on learning science concepts at a young age, but learning to think. It's completely unripe yet for me personally because it is still so early in the game. But now is the time to think about these things, I think! This one thing is what is keeping me from really thinking a CM approach (or maybe, even a classical approach?) is workable in the long run--after, say, the elementary years....that it may be too 'lite' on the sciences. What say you, Hive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.