mudboots Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Please bear with me - I'm still new here, still in the early years of homeschooling, and using the term "accelerated" instead of "gifted" for my kids because I don't know where they fit. I'm trying to decide on a long-term curriculum path for our four kids, ages 1 through 4. The older two are capable learners, and I suspect that the younger two will be, too. I'm just getting ready to order WTM. I also planned to order a couple of the What Your x-Grader Needs to Know guides. It would be nice if I could dispense with latter, if WTM covers the goals for accelerated kids better than What Your x-Grader Needs to Know. Before I ran across this site, I had planned to order RightStart Math, Handwriting Without Tears (the kids' fine motor skills are not advanced), Explode the Code, and maybe some of the books on the Sonlight list. I didn't know what to do for science. Some of the kids are saying they want to be doctors. (I'm sure some will automatically assume I'm pushing them, but I'm also sure that others on this board are in the medical field - and may have chosen that path at an early age - so I'm just going to present it as it is.) I've read that WTM is weak in science. It's also my weakness, but my husband's strength. How do you supplement? I don't want them to resent homeschooling if I fail to give them a solid foundation for whatever they want to do later. Are there other areas of weakness, or can I just follow the WTM recommendations all the way through and feel like they're getting a strong start? We plan to send them to a different school for high school, FWIW. Thanks so much. We start our school years in the spring, so I hope to get all this sorted out by then. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 If you read The Well-Trained Mind, it will answer alot of your questions! Also, another book that I reference when planning is The Latin-Centered Curriculum. The what your Xth grader needs to know books are fun to read through, but I end up using TWTM and LCC more when I'm planning. Your curriculum plans sound good (Rightstart, HWOT, Explode the Code). I think the best thing you can do at this stage is just read a LOT to your kids. Go to the library once a week and do lots of read-alouds (even math and science read-alouds!). Have you seen this website: http://livingmath.net/ This is one of my favorite math websites. :thumbup1: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Welcome! Can you get the "What Your Xth Grader Needs to Know" from your library? I don't think it is necessary, but it might be reassuring especially for the first year. For science, are you teaching young earth or old earth origins? -- and no need to fret about messing up their science or their chances at a MD, at least for the next several years! but lots of folks do like to boost or change the science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudboots Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Regarding old earth/young earth: I'd be offended by curriculum that undermined the Bible, and I'd be annoyed by curriculum that ignored scientific findings. I believe God created the world, one way or another, and our core faith should be able to stand up to exploration and discovery. I'm aiming for a quality curriculum, and we could handle a secular one as long as it was respectful. I'm sure I'll need a plan for answering the faith questions, too. I went to public school, and I'm still catching up on my own apologetics. About the library: We're still new to the community, and I haven't visited our library yet! Maybe we'll make a trip this week. Thanks for the math link, starrbuck! I love the way they describe the connection between math and the arts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acurtis75 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Having been in your position I can tell you that the WTM was the most useful resource I found. The outline for K -12 is very helpful but I found with my accelerated learner I have to just move ahead in the recommendations in some areas. For example, we have completed 3 or 4 levels of math over the last 18 months and skipped levels in things like First Language Lessons and Writing with Ease to get to the appropriate level of challenge. At 4 we did Bible lessons, HWOT, math (we started with Horizons but switched to mathusee. For us, mathusee is the perfect curriculum for acceleration), and explode the code. As she progressed with reading we added other things like Song School Latin, FLL, etc. I also bought the what your "x" should know books but found they were a waste of time. I was worried about not covering something but the further we go down the road the less concerned I am about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acurtis75 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Welcome! Can you get the "What Your Xth Grader Needs to Know" from your library? I don't think it is necessary, but it might be reassuring especially for the first year. For science, are you teaching young earth or old earth origins? -- and no need to fret about messing up their science or their chances at a MD, at least for the next several years! but lots of folks do like to boost or change the science. :iagree: on the science issue. Early on the focus needs to be learning to read and more importantly learning to learn. The WTM is the perfect resource for outlining this process. If you want a stronger science emphasis you can find plenty of information here on the boards when the time comes for that. In the meantime, I would consider adding Latin to your plans. The WTM and other resources are available that make a great case for the benefits of Latin in careers like medicine and law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenbrdsly Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Welcome! I think you will love Right Start Math btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) Regarding old earth/young earth: I'd be offended by curriculum that undermined the Bible, and I'd be annoyed by curriculum that ignored scientific findings. I believe God created the world, one way or another, and our core faith should be able to stand up to exploration and discovery. I'm aiming for a quality curriculum, and we could handle a secular one as long as it was respectful. I'm sure I'll need a plan for answering the faith questions, too. I went to public school, and I'm still catching up on my own apologetics. RE science, if you stay away from Dawkins' et al. I think you'll find that secular sources usually do not deal with religion at all. And frankly, if a curriculum is written by someone who does not accept old earth/evolutionary science, it will be ignoring scientific findings central to the topic -- perhaps with the exception of chemistry. Science is largely about providing explanations -- about understanding the natural world -- and explanations for biology, astronomy, earth science and so on rely very heavily on origins. I do not say this to be divisive or incendiary: there isn't a neutral stance on the origins question, scientifically speaking, and the implications are pervasive. A discussion of anatomy that makes no reference to evolutionary processes will be ignoring an enormous amount of scientific thinking on anatomy and present a very different "intuition" about how the body works, and why. A discussion of astronomy that maintains the universe was created instantaneously by a Deity, roughly 6,000 years ago, will be extremely different than treatment that derives the age of the universe by standard physical measurements (I should know -- we're doing astronomy with Apologia & with the DVD series "How the Universe Works"!). You have years to mull this over but it is worth keeping in mind as you become more familiar with your own faith & apologetics and with the science options available to your own children. My own view is that you could use, with great success, nearly any of the major science curricula/sources but you will almost certainly be adapting either the presentation of the science, or the presentation of the role of God and the place of man in the universe. Probably both ;). -- finally, on the science topic, here's a link to an hour-long talk by a Christian & a scientist I admire greatly, Bill Newsome, on the relationship of his faith and his science. He believes in a very old universe and in evolutionary processes, and in a Creator God and the Savior Jesus Christ. Bill also references & recommends several apologetic books in this talk. ... I've read that WTM is weak in science. ... Are there other areas of weakness, or can I just follow the WTM recommendations all the way through and feel like they're getting a strong start? Art & Music: I did come across something by Susan Wise Bauer the other day, I think discussing Charlotte Mason education but am not sure, in which she mentioned that Classical Education is not especially strong in art & music. If you agree with this assessment (not everybody does), you could look at Veritas Press' offerings in these areas, or maybe follow Ambleside Online's artist- and composer- study cycles. Ethics: I completely disagree with the argument presented in WTM that teaching ethics is outside the purview of a general-purpose, non-religious classical curriculum. Ethics is remarkably stable across cultures and has been of central concern to classical educators beginning with the ancient Greeks. You will probably be hitting ethics through your religious education, but if you were not, ethics would be a gap to fill. Math: Finally, the math is not a strength of WTM, and here's why. This is a summary of what a high school student should be accomplishing in history, a WTM strength: "During the rhetoric stage, the student actively engages with the ideas of the past and the present -- not just reading about them, but evaluating them, tracing their development, and comparing them to other philosophies and opinions." This is heady, important stuff. Here's what that student should be accomplishing in math: "The classically educated student will complete courses in geometry, first-year-algebra, and second-year algebra. This coincides with the bare minimum demanded by most colleges for admission." And that's it. Studies in math beyond this minimum are suggested only for improving one's chances of getting into a desirable school, or as vocational prep. for certain careers. You may not plan on teaching the high school level of math yourself, but you should be wary of accepting a math education laid out for you by anyone who believes that the main goal of history is truth, but of math is mastering proofs, boosting college placement and providing vocational training. If you take the point of view that the universe is God's handiwork -- a marvelous book of creation -- and that mathematics is the language that book is written in, you will have a more compelling and a more accurate picture of what mathematics is really about: seeing what is right before our eyes, yet invisible unless we know where and how to look. This perspective will drive a more fruitful math education. IMHO, of course :). Edited February 22, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I think you'll find that secular sources usually do not deal with religion at all. And frankly, if a curriculum is written by someone who does not accept old earth/evolutionary science, it will be ignoring scientific findings central to the topic -- perhaps with the exception of chemistry. Science is largely about providing explanations -- about understanding the natural world -- and explanations for biology, astronomy, earth science and so on rely very heavily on origins. :iagree: We do a lot of math and science for our son. It's just something he likes and that we enjoy teaching. I don't really follow WTM for science and math. We do what works for our son. For math, that has been mainly Singapore with a lot of enrichment thrown in. Most of the colleges I am aware of require 3-4 years of math with calculus being a huge plus. Having majored in math myself and having a mathy kid, I can't imagine him doing anything less than the AP exam in Calculus before college. For science, we read a lot and do various labs and mostly self selected or designed experiments. Our main text this year was CPO Earth Science, which he finished. He is taking a class now of the house in Science with other homeschoolers. I am looking at adding the Story of Science books to our curriculum for next year along with the next CPO book for reading, because he likes reading textbooks. If he did not enjoy it, I would not do it at this age. So far he has been exposed to most areas of science and maintaining that, as well as deepening his understanding as he ages, is important to me. We use the text books as books and don't focus on quizes or tests. Despite being religious and regular church goers, we are secular homeschoolers all the way and leave the religion studies to parts of history (as in explaining the beliefs and traditions of the cultures studied) and the faith studies out of school completely. We also flatly reject creationism and anything that smacks of young earth. I believe in evolution. Edited February 22, 2012 by kijipt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Governess Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 We are classically schooling our girls but I also want them to be strong in math and science. We use Singapore and I will probably be using Beast Academy as well. My goal is pre-calc or calculus by graduation. I am using Building Foundations for Scientific Understanding when I have time. It is a great intro for inquiry-based science for this age group. It has been a challenge to stay on top of so many subjects and feel like we are doing all of them well, but so far we have stayed afloat. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I have older children and I have some thoughts on this. STEM is an acronym that is now being used to describe Science-Technology-Engineering-Math subjects and students. We are a STEM family that uses TWTM. I also have brightish children - not brilliant and often not ahead academically but ...hmmm... odd seems the best way to describe them. They tend to be more intense and high strung than many of their peers. Just so you know where I am coming from. Here are my thoughts: In order to do STEM subjects successfully (in the more average sense of the word), a student needs a mix of two things that the homeschooling world tends to think of as contradictory - very good academic skills and a high level of curiosity and lots of time in which to pursue their own STEM interests. They need the good academic skills and good study skills in order to survive the high level of university education they need to be qualified to work in a STEM field. They need the curiosity and hobby time to develop the creativity and problem-solving and hands-on skills (and to some extent the knowledge and experience) they need for a STEM field. Too much school-at-home homeschooling and the student doesn't have time for hobbies and tends to have their curiosity dulled down. Too much unschooling homeschooling and one risks ending up with a student who doesn't have the math and academic skills and textbook skills to survive even a typical high school science class. (It is true that a student can learn these things faster when he or she is older and is motivated, but it still takes time to develop the skills like algebra and note-taking and aquire the background knowledge of things like the boiling point of water.) You have to find a balance between studying STEM and doing STEM. Classical education stereotypically tends to be thought of as very schooly, booky, desky and not mathy/sciency, but it has some advantages. A WTM family tends to have no problem sitting their students down to do lots of reading and writing and learning of academic skills. The focus on academic skills (rather than tons of content) and learning how to learn anything tends to leave one with a student who can work through their required schoolwork effiently and have time left over to explore. It also tends to lead to a student who when exploring, isn't handicapped by having to take a whole class in order to learn something. You can think of TWTM as an outline for teaching academic skills using whatever content you wish. Judging by years of reading this board, typically STEM oriented WTM families that have used TWTM until about 7th grade, at which point they switch to using some sort of textbook science (often the same ones used in public high school) and then for the latter half of high school, they do AP science or send their children to do their science at a nearby college (or community college, if it is strong in science). The problem with this is that the textbook science tends to take up lots of time and may discourage that important curiosity/doing-science-oneself piece. Personally, I had good luck having my youngest do WTM science until 6th grade, do textbook science for 6th and 7th, do doing-science-oneself for 8th, 9th, and 10th, and then do community college science for 11th (and next year - 12th grade). The textbook science gave him the knowledge base to work from when he was exploring himself. The exploring gave him the curiosity and enthusiasm and skills. And now he is back to textbook science again, with the skills to deal with classroom science and enough experience that he can tie what he is learning into his own body of knowledge about how the world works. If this was helpful, you can look for the thread I started a few years ago about basic academic skills and TWTM (or what I wish I had known when I first started TWTM). http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255839&highlight=narration http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255841&highlight=narration Here is a mega-thread about balancing textbook knowledge with do-it-yourself knowledge (along with other types of knowledge). If you find it overwhelming, just skip it. There is a lot of good information revolving around the use of TWTM, but it might be way too much until you have a few years of TWTM under your belt. This issue doesn't really crop up until your child is older. At a younger age, TWTM system of using a spine and going deeping into whatever the child finds interesting works fine because there is time to do that. When the child gets older, then it becomes more problematical. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193372&highlight=balance And something else you might like to read: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313033&highlight=kits http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3406827#poststop http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2877542#poststop Nan Edited February 22, 2012 by Nan in Mass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8filltheheart Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I agree with most of what Nan has written. To give you an idea of where I am coming from--our oldest ds is a homeschool graduate and now a chemical engineer; our 10th grader wants to major either in astrophysics or theoretical physics; our 7th grader vacillates between being an ornithologist and a nun (I'm sure she would have been close friends with St. Francis!! ;) ) Our experience is that the most important thing we have done for our kids when they have been young is encourage their natural curiosity and give them plenty of opportunity to explore, play, build, and get messy. ;) Our personal experience is that attempting to design/build/create on their own w/lots of failures eventually leading to personal triumph when something actually succeeds does a lot more to generate the kind of thinking that asks "how" and "why" and seeking out how to attempt to prove their thoughts vs. waiting for the answer to be given to them in a pre-digested textbook explanation/pre-fab experiment. As counter-intuitive as it seems, my kids never encounter science textbooks prior to late middle school. Nor have we ever even attempted to present science in topical units. We don't do pre-planned "ta-da" experiments. (no wow--science is entertaining--factor going on in our house.) We simply read lots and lots of books on whatever science topics peak their curiosity and let them sort of meander where those interests lead them. Once they hit anywhere from 7th-9th grade (depends on the child), we do get more systematic and they do use textbooks (either high school or college textbooks). Not one of my older kids has ever had any difficulty jumping into science at that level. (and they have never had a science test, a science vocabulary quiz, whatever prior that. ;) ) It is not approach that many are comfortable with, but it is one that has worked well for our family. (On a side note, as far as science and creation issues go, I am firmly Christian and have zero problems w/evolution.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) ...Our experience is that the most important thing we have done for our kids when they have been young is encourage their natural curiosity and give them plenty of opportunity to explore, play, build, and get messy. ;) Our personal experience is that attempting to design/build/create on their own w/lots of failures eventually leading to personal triumph when something actually succeeds does a lot more to generate the kind of thinking that asks "how" and "why" and seeking out how to attempt to prove their thoughts vs. waiting for the answer to be given to them in a pre-digested textbook explanation/pre-fab experiment. As counter-intuitive as it seems, my kids never encounter science textbooks prior to late middle school. Nor have we ever even attempted to present science in topical units. We don't do pre-planned "ta-da" experiments. (no wow--science is entertaining--factor going on in our house.) We simply read lots and lots of books on whatever science topics peak their curiosity and let them sort of meander where those interests lead them. :):):) This is similar to what I'm doing now, but I feel sort of guilty about it. -- I did not mean my posts to imply that Christianity and evolution are at odds, just that evolution & non-evolution are. Also thank you to Nan for that post, and the links. Edited February 23, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) (oops, submitted my post 2x) Edited February 23, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Want to add - about TWTM science in the younger years- I think TWTM science in the younger years is a very good mix of learning to read science and learning science skills. My children found the recommendations satisfying. They built up their ability to look up the answers to their questions, observe, design a scientific experiment and record it, use measuring equipment, and read about science. (We bought all those children's nature guides and my son lugged them around in his backpack for a few years. I had my doubts about spending the money, initially, especially since we have a pretty good set of adult guides, but they were worth every penny.) I didn't follow the req's year by year but followed the order. We took out a canvas bag full of library books every week and after my youngest's schoolwork was finished, he spent the rest of the school day reading them to himself while I worked with the older one. I added drawing instruction (via Draw Squad) since I could see that my children needed to be able to draw in order to do a good job with their nature journals. Mine continued to keep nature journals all through elementary school. They also continued to design their own simple experiments and write them up. TWTM taught them how to do that. Sigh - despite having had college physics and chemistry, *I* learned from the elementary WTM req's. Ug. (We began the req's with the first grade ones. I have never seen the book with mudpies in the title. The first book about anatomy would have been better when my children were about 3, also. The creepy crawlers book was good. So were the chem req's) Nan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudboots Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I LOVE this forum. :001_smile: Ana - How will/do you teach ethics to your kids? I agree about the importance of math (my husband asked me recently about a trig function for something he was building) and ethics (hospitals have ethics committees for deciding acceptable patient care). I love the clear explanations about science in your post - soul food for someone frustrated about the connection between faith and science! :001_smile: I'll be sorting through those ideas, plus watching the Bill Newsome video today. Nan - Thanks for articulating the tug-of-war between structured and unstructured time for kids who might want to tackle a challenging higher ed degree. I hadn't heard the STEM acronym before. It helps to have some words for what we hope to do, and an acronym makes me feel a little more like we "fit" somewhere... ;) They built up their ability to look up the answers to their questions, observe, design a scientific experiment and record it, use measuring equipment, and read about science. Yes, this is what I want, plus a basic understanding of charts. 8Fill - Do you provide guidance for your kids' free exploring time? My kids have free play time, but I feel like they're happier when they're being taught. For sure, they need more projects that are self-directed and messy. I still feel the compelling urge to plan it all in advance, though, at least laying out the materials and giving guidance. So now I'm looking at Latin, BFSU, CPO science, Beast Academy, Latin-Centered Curriculum... I ordered TWTM and planned a trip to the library. I need more reading time for myself just to keep up with the options for homeschooling! Edited February 23, 2012 by mudboots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8filltheheart Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 8Fill - Do you provide guidance for your kids' free exploring time? My kids have free play time, but I feel like they're happier when they're being taught. For sure, they need more projects that are self-directed and messy. I still feel the compelling urge to plan it all in advance, though, at least laying out the materials and giving guidance. It depends on what you are discussing and the ages involved. Sometimes (most often) when they are little, I might just prompt a little creativity with a question. For example throwing GI Joe over the railing.......what kind of parachute/materials do you think would have him land the smoothest? That would leave my boys with hours upon hours of investigation and competition. ;) But, mostly I don't interfere and leave them to their own devices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 :lurk5::bigear: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I LOVE this forum. :001_smile: Ana - How will/do you teach ethics to your kids? I agree about the importance of math (my husband asked me recently about a trig function for something he was building) and ethics (hospitals have ethics committees for deciding acceptable patient care). I love the clear explanations about science in your post - soul food for someone frustrated about the connection between faith and science! :001_smile: I'll be sorting through those ideas, plus watching the Bill Newsome video today. /QUOTE] First, just :) :) :)!!! I'm so glad my science thoughts seemed more constructive than curmudgeonly. And it would be so wonderful to have introduced another person to Bill Newsome's lecture, which has been a treat and an inspiration to me. I actually attended that lecture but had to leave after about 15 minutes, to get home to Button (a little tot back then). I didn't hear the whole thing until I listened to it this holiday season, when DH had the kids out and I was cooking. Secondly, I wrote a massive ethics response and it got eaten by the ether. So discouraging! I'll mull my thoughts over more and try to re-do it this weekend; it's too late here for me to give it a go now. Thirdly, for anybody interested in catalyzing informal science "Sandbox Scientist" was hugely useful to me. The "kits" vary from quite simple to dismayingly involved, but even the few I did (and the microwave I partially dismantled with Button) were very fruitful & had him declaring that he _loved_ science! I like 8FilltheHeart's ideas above, and would try that sort of thing first; but Button never took my ideas and ran with them, though he thoroughly enjoyed the kits from the book. So that can be a second line of defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I LOVE this forum. :001_smile: Ana - How will/do you teach ethics to your kids? -- I just recovered these posts, which I thought I'd lost. Am ambivalent about that, 'cause they're flawed & incomplete, but here they are. I am afraid I don't have the ethics thing sorted out, really, and hope somebody (8Fill maybe? whose posts come from a very good place, it seems to me) can set me straight :D. I'll write what's bouncing around my head in & hope it is of interest. I'll break it up into a couple of posts. It seems to me that the very core of a classical education is the character of the child. This is the one place where I feel TWTM really falls down. Starting with the ancient Greeks, right through the Romans, the rise & decline of Islamic culture, the Middle Ages in Western Europe, the Renaissance: at the very center of classical education is the question of who we are shaping the student to be. Naturally the student is her own person, and not infinitely malleable, and the instructors however accomplished and dedicated are fallible too, but one has an ethos in mind. The Greek concept of the person as a social creature, with responsibilities to his Creator and to his fellow people, a creature designed so that right living & being will lead to eudaimonia (or roughly well-being), has been a starting point for my own thinking. There have been several recent threads on K-8 RE Charlotte Mason educational techniques/philosophies, and some focus on what one drops with CM: in the early years some children do less writing, for example, or formal science. What Charlotte Mason really brings to the table for me is MORE to include: specifically, keeping the development of the child's character and spirit at the center of one's educational behavior. CM also has some specific tools for tracking character development along specific dimensions, noting a child's weaknesses and bolstering them constructively, which are a valuable resource. So then we start with a concept of the child as a Created person (the Roman Stoics have convinced me that one can equally well imagine the child as created by a God or as arising from nature, for the purpose of ethics) who is embedded in a natural & social world. To keep my ethics all-purpose and ecumenical, I imagine the child's spiritual relationship as arising from the fact that she _is_ a Created person: that the child's life is not entirely her own to do with as she pleases. This seems to me so obviously true that a reasonable person can stipulate it and move on. No person achieves eudaimonia, or comes to embody the qualities we associate with an extraordinarily good person, by going around doing what she pleases because it happens to please her. Modern people, especially in affluent parts of society, manage to be fairly nice people without much discomfort by making allowances for some claim of family and society upon their time and talents; but this still falls short of the mark of being a truly and deeply good person. Fulfilling one's potential as a good human happens as a result of spending your life in service of a greater good than your own, than your family's, than your society's or even than "mankind's". Dedicating one's whole existence to any of these, or of other apparently noble, particular causes leads to all sorts of bigotry, arrogance, and other evils. -- I am thinking of religious persecutions, of the evils of Communism, and of smaller evils done when we trample other persons in the name of a greater good. The ultimate good, the ultimate reality and concern that people have in their hearts when they are being their best and most true selves, is identified by religious persons as God. In my experience there are plenty of "secular" persons who also try to live their lives in accordance with a higher, ultimate truth; and it is a mistake to claim that they are worshiping idols, or that they have simply replaced a true God with finite "humanity" or "science." -- this last bit is taken from Paul Tillich's writing. He defines, to my reading, anybody engaged in understanding & living by "ultimate concern" as a Protestant :) which makes me smile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) So, we have students -- children -- whose lives ought to be spent in the service of God (of what is ultimate concern, and not of finite things). The other big part of my ethical framework is the social nature of the human concern. This is simpler to stipulate, no reasonable person will argue with it. I generally imagine academic education as a societal concern, and so conceive that the job of education is especially to train the child to be a good citizen but that the details of being a good son, brother, papa, &c. will fall chiefly to the family/religious domain. Naturally if a child is failing in any area of life that is a concern to the teacher, but just as nutrition isn't the schoolmaster's principle concern neither is managing these particular relationships. So for reasons theoretical & pragmatic, I think of ethics in education as starting from the point that the child's life is not entirely his own; and that the business of education is to teach the child to govern himself AND OTHERS. That last bit is essential in a democracy, and is why I have such an affinity for much of Greek thought on education. With that in mind, I look to major failures of character training for some illumination of what is required to prevent things from going pear-shaped. For me particularly the institution of slavery in the American South and the Holocaust are focal points. When one is embedded in such a poisonous society, what is required to resist? to be true? to see what is good, despite "good" people trying to convince you that good is evil and evil is not only necessary, but sublime? Here I do not have an answer, but I imagine a sort of cluster of solutions, a cloud of solutions in the historical state-space, if you like thinking that way. First off I am afraid that religion doesn't seem related to being a stand-up, hard-core good person in these situations. Religious persons were on both sides of the slavery issue, for sure, as were atheists. Looking at who risked their lives in resisting the Nazis, one finds Catholics, Protestants, Quakers, Socialists, Communists, secular humanists, Jews, decent people of every ilk. It does seem that belonging to a community of like-minded persons lent strength, but I am not really sure if that is true or what to make of it. Second, it seems to me that the ability to not go along with terrible inhumanity requires being willing to see what is right before you and to commit yourself to protecting the basic dignity of every person. It requires a willingness to not be swayed by any argument if the result is to abuse the defenseless. These perspectives touch on concepts of pacifism, but it seems obvious to me that many soldiers are persons of the highest honor and ethics, and the case for pacifism historically is complicated to say the least with good and brave people arguing for both sides; so it seems me that whether violence is ever ethical or not is a decision that moral people of good understanding will answer differently. My goal, then, ethically speaking is to train my child to be in service to what is infinitely good and to raise her so that, placed in circumstances where most people perpetrate or enable evil, she would hold to the good; and to accomplish that, also I have the goal of being such a person myself (I am totally sure I fall short of this goal and fervently hope never to be put to the test). All this serious responsibility focus is tempered by my conviction that joy, or eudaimonia, is incredibly important and true, and is a sign of being in right relation with spiritual/existential/ultimate truth. The details are not worked out yet :D (I thought of the "banghead" smilie there but it seemed flippant!) I'm starting with inculcating in my children the deep-seated conviction that their lives are not their own: they were not put on this earth for their own pleasure. I also am inculcating the belief that the well-being of people, and very much their own well-being, is extremely important and to be taken seriously; I work roughly from a eudaimonia definition here, and the zeitgeist of Paul's "fruits of the Spirit", and Jesus' command to "do unto others". Then I focus on learning to manage our behavior regardless of our feelings, which are transient and not always helpful; for this a great deal of Stoic writing and also some Eastern thought is useful to me. "Regardless of our feelings" is perhaps not best-phrased, for our feelings can provide helpful information & intuitions, and of course they relate to our own well-being; but in general I highly value righteous behavior ("kind" and "civilized" behavior being too mild to cover the harder circumstances I have in mind) especially under trying circumstances (again, let me emphasize how far I am from my own ideal!!!) Finally I am focusing on how to live with joy, with the "peace that passeth understanding"; to enjoy the pleasures of life as far as is wholesome and to hold them lightly; to be able to forgo a pleasure or to experience a discomfort cheerfully and without grudge; and trying to build up, with my children's education, a great knowledge of and affection for their world and their fellow persons. All this has to do with loving the universe, reveling in its beauties, not being overwhelmed by the ugliness & suffering, and living a life of faithful & joyful service. One advantage of trying to raise the children this way is that Button already points out to me, fairly gently I think, where I fall short. We're helping each other out! Edited February 24, 2012 by serendipitous journey type-os Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Two big things I left out: Regarding being fit to govern oneself and others: this to me is the main advantage of a classical education, that it is a good method for educating such people, for shaping good people and wise citizens. Also I am thinking of how I teach the children given the culture they find themselves in. Here where we live, they have a minimal risk of academic failure or falling in with criminals, but a very high risk of becoming "entitled" and of mistaking civility in themselves for strong character. And my parents were very bad people, but lived ordinary and church-going lives and, for a time at least, enjoyed a reputation as good persons; so the idea of "casual evil" has been important to me. I am sure that these personal concerns color my framework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudboots Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Ana, your post is a great gift to me, even if it wasn't quite what I expected! If you develop your own curriculum around this, I'd be interested in it. :) These two points struck home particularly: It does seem that belonging to a community of like-minded persons lent strength Second, it seems to me that the ability to not go along with terrible inhumanity requires being willing to see what is right before you and to commit yourself to protecting the basic dignity of every person. It requires a willingness to not be swayed by any argument if the result is to abuse the defenseless. These perspectives touch on concepts of pacifism... I went to a pacifist school (college), but I have too much of "defending the defenseless" in me to be a true pacifist. A person can love another person while making sure that person is never able to oppress again. And my parents were very bad people, but lived ordinary and church-going lives and, for a time at least, enjoyed a reputation as good persons; so the idea of "casual evil" has been important to me. I am really sorry. This must have made a huge impression. It takes good character to choose a different path. Your writing gets straight to the core and gives this mama of four tiny ones a lot to ponder! Edited February 24, 2012 by mudboots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudboots Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Sometimes (most often) when they are little, I might just prompt a little creativity with a question. For example throwing GI Joe over the railing.......what kind of parachute/materials do you think would have him land the smoothest? I don't naturally think in terms of "exploring" questions (science isn't my strength), so this example actually was very helpful! Thanks, everyone, for the tips and resources! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I don't naturally think in terms of "exploring" questions (science isn't my strength), so this example actually was very helpful! Thanks, everyone, for the tips and resources! :) TWTM will tell you what questions to ask. The lists of questions to ask in TWTM are what makes it so very worthwhile, in my opinion. It helps you, as the parent, to do the teaching in odd moments and when the moment arises rather than only when you are sitting at the desk with the workbook. Science is a habit of mind, as much as anything else. TWTM's approach to early science helps to teach this habit, I think. Many children naturally have that curiosity and it is just a matter of encouraging them to think a bit deeper about things and be aware of how we know certain things and how we got our body of knowledge about how things work. TWTM's approach keep children from associating "science" with "boring textbook", so when they get to the point where they might need that boring textbook in order to learn all the basics in an organized way, they see it as the stepping stone it is rather than the definition of science. Nan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 TWTM will tell you what questions to ask. The lists of questions to ask in TWTM are what makes it so very worthwhile, in my opinion. It helps you, as the parent, to do the teaching in odd moments and when the moment arises rather than only when you are sitting at the desk with the workbook. Science is a habit of mind, as much as anything else. TWTM's approach to early science helps to teach this habit, I think. Many children naturally have that curiosity and it is just a matter of encouraging them to think a bit deeper about things and be aware of how we know certain things and how we got our body of knowledge about how things work. TWTM's approach keep children from associating "science" with "boring textbook", so when they get to the point where they might need that boring textbook in order to learn all the basics in an organized way, they see it as the stepping stone it is rather than the definition of science. Nan :bigear: Dd8 meets her science tutor this afternoon for her first chem lesson. No boring text here -- but we're not strictly WTM either. They are working through the Thames & Kosmos Core Science kit together. Alone. Without little sis or mom around. :party:Abil is sooooo jazzed to do real science with a scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) RE science, if you stay away from Dawkins' et al. I think you'll find that secular sources usually do not deal with religion at all. Maybe this is true of science curricula (we haven't looked at many of them), but it's not true of secular curricula across the board. Whether or not they have a conscious agenda, some of them tend to present religious concepts in a way that's so dumbed-down that they do actually push one viewpoint. For instance, I just got done looking through a children's book on explorers that said that Darwin was controversial because his scientific work "contradicted the Bible." As if the Usborne editor were an established authority on the meaning of Sacred Scripture. Setting aside the question of whether or not it's necessary to put a potted version of this controversy into a picture book on famous explorers, why not just say that his work went against some people's interpretations of the Bible? I realize that many religious curricula do similar things, such as making sweeping statements about what "evolutionists" think. But this doesn't excuse it. It's misleading no matter who is doing it. Finally, the math is not a strength of WTM, and here's why. (...) You may not plan on teaching the high school level of math yourself, but you should be wary of accepting a math education laid out for you by anyone who believes that the main goal of history is truth, but of math is mastering proofs, boosting college placement and providing vocational training. If you take the point of view that the universe is God's handiwork -- a marvelous book of creation -- and that mathematics is the language that book is written in, you will have a more compelling and a more accurate picture of what mathematics is really about: seeing what is right before our eyes, yet invisible unless we know where and how to look. This perspective will drive a more fruitful math education. Do you think that the students should be spending more time on math, or just that they should study math differently (e.g., with some discussion and reflection about the spiritual context)? If the latter, I tend to agree. Just don't get people here started on the issue of religious content in math curricula. ;) If the former, I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Classical education teaches the trivium (working with words and non-quantifiable concepts) before the quadrivium (working with quantities). There are very good reasons for this, including the fact that, as human beings, our theoretical and applied work in the latter fields calls constantly on our mastery of the language skills gained in the study of the trivium subjects. The educational reforms of the last couple of centuries have largely ignored this and pushed intensive study of math and science earlier and earlier in the curriculum, mainly for practical economic reasons. TWTM and other classically-inspired methods don't consider this to be the best approach to education, even (or, one might say, especially) for students who plan to go on to specialize in these fields at the college level. There's certainly a case to be made for giving every capable student a solid college prep background, but I'm not sure it's necessary to go beyond that. Some of our European posters surely know much more about this, but I've read that in countries that offer their top students the choice of technical or classical high schools, the scientists who've attended classical schools go on to a much greater proportion of high-level achievements than the ones who've taken more math and science at the secondary level. Werner Heisenberg has written about the value of his knowledge of things such as Greek poetry in his own work. There are many more examples along the same lines. In theory, it seems as if it would be great if we could give our students opportunities for an intensive study of everything, but there are only so many hours in the day. We all need to make choices at some point, and we need to be clear about our own priorities for different stages. Mathematics and astronomy were traditionally considered the highest secular areas of study in a classical education, but that's not in itself a reason to emphasize them at the early levels. Music is one area in which we've chosen to do much more than TWTM suggests. While the study of music theory is part of the quadrivium, learning to sing and play under the guidance of a trained master was a central part of both ancient and medieval education starting from the earliest years. It's not often mentioned in the books because it was taken for granted as a mainstay of their culture -- an aspect of poetry for the Greeks, and prayer for the Christians. To leave this out seems to be highly experimental, and I suspect that the widespread lack of early musical training has detrimental effects on children's neurological development as well as on our culture. (And if anyone would prefer some more modern evidence, the links between music lessons and later success in mathematics are also well documented. :)) Edited February 26, 2012 by Eleanor hmm, looks like it's raining commas today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) ... Do you think that the students should be spending more time on math, or just that they should study math differently (e.g., with some discussion and reflection about the spiritual context)? If the latter, I tend to agree. Just don't get people here started on the issue of religious content in math curricula. ;) If the former, I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Classical education teaches the trivium (working with words and non-quantifiable concepts) before the quadrivium (working with quantities). There are very good reasons for this, including the fact that, as human beings, our theoretical and applied work in the latter fields calls constantly on our mastery of the language skills gained in the study of the trivium subjects. The educational reforms of the last couple of centuries have largely ignored this and pushed intensive study of math and science earlier and earlier in the curriculum, mainly for practical economic reasons. TWTM and other classically-inspired methods don't consider this to be the best approach to education, even (or, one might say, especially) for students who plan to go on to specialize in these fields at the college level. There's certainly a case to be made for giving every capable student a solid college prep background, but I'm not sure it's necessary to go beyond that. Some of our European posters surely know much more about this, but I've read that in countries that offer their top students the choice of technical or classical high schools, the scientists who've attended classical schools go on to a much greater proportion of high-level achievements than the ones who've taken more math and science at the secondary level. Werner Heisenberg has written about the value of his knowledge of things such as Greek poetry in his own work. There are many more examples along the same lines. In theory, it seems as if it would be great if we could give our students opportunities for an intensive study of everything, but there are only so many hours in the day. We all need to make choices at some point, and we need to be clear about our own priorities for different stages. Mathematics and astronomy were traditionally considered the highest secular areas of study in a classical education, but that's not in itself a reason to emphasize them at the early levels. .... (And if anyone would prefer some more modern evidence, the links between music lessons and later success in mathematics are also well documented. :)) My main thought about TWTM's treatment of math is that the understanding of the value of mathematics, and the goal of teaching it, is severely impoverished. It is treated as a topic for learning computation and achieving career goals, not as a fundamental study of truth or of nature, which is a richer and more fruitful description. The placement of mathematics in the trivium/quadrivium is of no importance to me in considering a classical education, because I am aiming for an education consonant with the goals of the original classical educators and not the medieval academics. It is my understanding that elementary mathematics was a part of the education of ancient Greeks and Romans. -- I realize that this is an off-label use of "classical education" but a defense of that usage is another thread entirely :). I think my point comes down to your goal of giving each student a college prep level of math. This leaves the math goal to be defined by the college/university system. Would you let your history goal be defined by "sufficient for college prep"? If so, we can agree to disagree about the goal of education generally. If not, perhaps there is room to talk about whether the field of mathematics warrants a more liberal mindset (liberal is in, "freeing", a liberal education"). Apologies for brevity & for any contrariness that may seem to exist in the above, must get Bot-bot up from nap. I believe there is much common ground here and appreciate the opportunity for fruitful discussion. ... I was trying to edit this post-nap, but am pre-dinner so still haven't much time ;). I think we are generally in agreement; certainly music is a boon, though I am not sure we should consider modern Westerners stunted by the lack of musical training (some folks do, true enough). We may have different opinions on the role of maths education in free, voting people expected to govern themselves; and esp. in the education of a society's elite. Quick examples: 1. it's entirely possible that the average nutrition of British children is better-than-adequate even if most are undernourished. 2. Is the survival rate of children in sub-Saharan Africa improving, declining, or steady in the past ten years -- the answer to this affects monies and policies destined to help this population, as well as decisions about whether current interventions are effective or need to be changed. Reports that survival was declining turn out to be wrong, almost certainly, for very interesting reasons accessible to the mildly-statistically-savvy, educated layperson. 3. Assume there is a strong correlation between training in ancient languages and scientific success. Is it causal? What classes of relationship, other than causality, lead to a positive correlation? Similarly, can drops in US test scores or other metrics be attributed to changes in maths education, esp. given that there have been essential changes across the curriculum (the gutting of grammar comes to mind). Are US modern maths standards for elementary actually higher & earlier, or are they different in some other way? -- This entire class of questions wanders into statistical reasoning, at which people are notoriously bad (requires the sort of training that formal logic demands) and yet which describes an enormous set of real-life concerns which are extremely non-theoretical. Statistics is a field not required by TWTM but which I would require of any student of average capability in high school. 4. A non-calculus-requiring intro to nonlinear dynamics would give an enormous advantage in understanding complex systems like the economy & is entirely possible in a junior or senior maths course, and a set of lawmakers with a background like _that_ and dealing with a similarly-educated set of voters would have much, much less stalemate in times of duress when a sensible course of action can be agreed upon by economists from the left and the right but not by the politicians they advise, or the constituencies those politicians serve. okay, time for doing the lunch dishes so there's room for dinner. :D It will be obvious from the above that I think a major goal of a classical education is to educate free persons fit to govern. Maybe differences in POV stem from that, which is not the goal shared by everybody: it is clear to me that educated people of good will have opinions different to mine and there must be several valid perspectives of which mine is only one. And I'm absolutely positive that my position has a great deal of room for improvement. Maybe y'all will help me improve it? ETA #2: can't help but feel that this strikes a strident tone not intended ... ah well, never enough time these days. Edited February 27, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The placement of mathematics in the trivium/quadrivium is of no importance to me in considering a classical education, because I am aiming for an education consonant with the goals of the original classical educators and not the medieval academics. It is my understanding that elementary mathematics was a part of the education of ancient Greeks and Romans. -- I realize that this is an off-label use of "classical education" but a defense of that usage is another thread entirely :). I'm not sure what you mean. In the ancient world, elementary aged students were generally taught simple, practical mathematics, such as arithmetic and measurement. I've never seen any suggestion that they were taught about the wonders of mathematics in some metaphysical way. At the advanced levels, yes -- the Pythagoreans are a famous example -- but they were young adults, not school children. There's a brief article on the subject here. You might also enjoy Marrou's History of Education in Antiquity, which is extensively footnoted with further references. One can also find more details by searching Google Books for "ancient mathematics education" or some such terms. I think my point comes down to your goal of giving each student a college prep level of math. This leaves the math goal to be defined by the college/university system.These plans for high school aren't "my goals" in some ultimate sense. A liberal education doesn't end at the secondary level, nor even with college. A person who has a desire for learning, and for mathematics in particular, can continue to pursue it as a lifelong interest, whether professionally or as an amateur. He can define his own goals, if he has the liberty to do so. You make a good point about the role of statistics and economics in political decisions. I agree that there's a certain amount of practical applied mathematics that every educated citizen should know, and this would be interesting to discuss in relation to the math recommendations in TWTM (which I haven't looked at in detail, as my children are still so young). :) It will be obvious from the above that I think a major goal of a classical education is to educate free persons fit to govern. Maybe differences in POV stem from that, which is not the goal shared by everybody: it is clear to me that educated people of good will have opinions different to mine and there must be several valid perspectives of which mine is only one.It seems as if the goals you're expressing are mainly pragmatic -- preparing children to serve God and neighbor by governing wisely, solving practical problems, etc. If this is so, then maybe we do disagree. Our family's intellectual values are directed more generally to handing on and developing our culture, which is to say, the finest expressions of our own heritage and that of humanity as a whole. The aspects you mention, such as politics and technology, are a part of this. Still, they're not the whole picture, and (in my view) they shouldn't be allowed to drive the whole process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) With respect to ethics: Before classically educated students reached the advanced study of philosophy, they would have learned ethical concepts through religious education and everyday life in the family and marketplace. More than that, though, they would have been immersed in literature -- which is part of "grammar" in the classical sense of the word, and traditionally included both poetry and historical stories. Any attentive homeschooling parent is going to find many chances to discuss ethical issues in the "living books" recommended by TWTM et al. Just look at all the conversations we have here on the boards about bias and ideologies in various classic works. And you mentioned 8FilltheHeart -- from what I've gleaned from her past posts, her children are immersed in literature in their early years. This gets back to putting the trivium before the quadrivium (which is what the ancients did, even if they didn't use those terms). Technical proficiency, or even the abstract study of quantifiable concepts, can't solve ethical problems in complex human relations. The best they seem able to do is to facilitate some sort of mob rule with "Like" buttons. :tongue_smilie: From an excellent (albeit sometimes curmudgeonly) talk by Fr. Stanley Jaki, the late Benedictine physicist and historian of science: 'In discussing the results of “an all around good scientific education”, Schrödinger spoke of “the grotesque phenomenon of scientifically trained, highly competent minds with an unbelievably childlike - undeveloped or atrophied - philosophical outlook”.' 'But I still find most instructive as well as most frightening the reply Oppenheimer gave on being questioned by a Congressional Committee about whether some ethical considerations had been weighed before the making of the bomb. Oppenheimer replied: “...it is my judgment in these things that when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success”.' (from "The Science of Education and Education in Science," 2001 -- see pp. 57-73 of a large PDF) For some current examples of this, just consider Zuckerberg's "Hacker Ethos," or the remarkably content-free slogan, "Don't Be Evil." Evil = bad! Got it. Phew, glad we got that sorted out. :001_huh: Edited February 27, 2012 by Eleanor fixed link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) With respect to ethics: Before classically educated students reached the advanced study of philosophy, they would have learned ethical concepts through religious education and everyday life in the family and marketplace. More than that, though, they would have been immersed in literature -- which is part of "grammar" in the classical sense of the word, and traditionally included both poetry and historical stories. Any attentive homeschooling parent is going to find many chances to discuss ethical issues in the "living books" recommended by TWTM et al. Just look at all the conversations we have here on the boards about bias and ideologies in various classic works. And you mentioned 8FilltheHeart -- from what I've gleaned from her past posts, her children are immersed in literature in their early years. Ah, well, I think we differ fundamentally. I myself have noticed that persons with the most access to literary works do not tend to have the most advanced personal ethics. The lack of a causal connection between educated and ethical, in my experience and (as far as I can tell) historically is food for thought here, to me, in a similar way to the lack of a causal connection between degree of religiosity (from secular to very "religious") does. At any rate, I conceive of the role of ethics in classical education to be central in such a way that it should be explicit: here I have found the Charlotte Mason philosophy, and focus on character, resonates with my ideas. The authors of TWTM, who also suggested that studying Latin teaches "humility", do have a view similar to yours ... Edited February 28, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure what you mean. In the ancient world, elementary aged students were generally taught simple, practical mathematics, such as arithmetic and measurement. ... These plans for high school aren't "my goals" in some ultimate sense. A liberal education doesn't end at the secondary level, nor even with college. A person who has a desire for learning, and for mathematics in particular, can continue to pursue it as a lifelong interest, whether professionally or as an amateur. He can define his own goals, if he has the liberty to do so. You make a good point about the role of statistics and economics in political decisions. I agree that there's a certain amount of practical applied mathematics that every educated citizen should know, and this would be interesting to discuss in relation to the math recommendations in TWTM (which I haven't looked at in detail, as my children are still so young). :) It seems as if the goals you're expressing are mainly pragmatic -- preparing children to serve God and neighbor by governing wisely, solving practical problems, etc. If this is so, then maybe we do disagree. Our family's intellectual values are directed more generally to handing on and developing our culture, which is to say, the finest expressions of our own heritage and that of humanity as a whole. The aspects you mention, such as politics and technology, are a part of this. Still, they're not the whole picture, and (in my view) they shouldn't be allowed to drive the whole process. Regarding maths in elementary, I think I agree with your view; arithmetic is certainly sufficient. If possible I would like to see supplementing with music or with conceptual math, b/c arithmetic is to math (in my mind) as phonics is to reading, and it is nice to get some rewarding content as well as the necessary skills. RE "goals", I simply meant your goals as a homeschooler educating perhaps through, but not beyond, high school. If a goal of college-prep in maths education seems good to you, but college-prep in literature doesn't, that might be interesting to think about. Though it sounds like you have, a great deal. It is hard for me to imagine that most people will spend much time studying maths after high school if they don't love it by then; and hard to imagine that TWTM approach to maths will engender a love in those who aren't particularly math-inclined to start with. My goals in classical education are much more pragmatic than most who trace their roots to medieval institutions, which is why I tend to think about Greek and Roman educators more than the medievalists and not the academic Christians. The Greeks were not concerned with handing down generations of culture &c. I find them more concerned with what was true, and what was beautiful, and what was good also; and what was physically functional and practical generally later, it is true. I do not think I am much more pragmatic than many of the ancient Greeks. The children should be good, whole persons. This is the primary goal. It cannot be obtained incidentally. In general, people who lack advanced training in a field and are successful anyhow tend not to rate that field as essential: Heisenberg cherished his classical languages, Feynman didn't mourn his lack of it. So I would argue that people who haven't had a rich training in maths will not see it as beautiful, or even as useful, or as an important part of classical education. If a person is not swayed by arguments of utility, how imperative will she find it to be able to really see why some have called the equation e(raised to the power of pi*i)= -1 the most elegant mathematical statement that exists; some even claim it is proof of a God. -- did you find that compelling? :D And yet the very existence in our math nomenclature of imaginary numbers was one result of thousands of years of mathematical heritage and cultural development and struggle against religious/cultural (ancient Greek as well as early Christian) censorship. I also think it's a shame not to have a reasonable familiarity with the theory of relativity, or a good understanding of evolution: these are astonishing cultural achievements, and accessible to the bright and well-educated. I am concerned with handing down to my children the best of their own culture, and of the world's culture in addition to that. I am convinced that sufficient training to really perceive the power of mathematical ideas, and their beauty, is a key component of a truly classical education, a component that has fallen to the side. Training to appreciate maths is harder than training to appreciate art, or literature, or music, I think because neurotypical people naturally enjoy beautiful images, stories, and rhythm & harmony: maths and formal science are not intuitive. This is prob. why education in them can be delayed: we are not missing cognitive windows of development. But their very difficulty, and the thousands of years work into them, makes them such precious parts of our cultural heritage. It seems to me :). ETA: If people are giving their children a classical education a la WTM, this seems a remarkable accomplishment to me & I don't think they are obliged to figure out a set of better math goals/a richer program. But I'd like to see a progress in classical educators' use of maths so that classical programs provide a truly excellent maths foundation as well as humanities, so that future editions of WTM outline a path for parents to achieve this. Edited February 28, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Technical proficiency, or even the abstract study of quantifiable concepts, can't solve ethical problems in complex human relations. The best they seem able to do is to facilitate some sort of mob rule with "Like" buttons. :tongue_smilie::001_huh: Technical proficiency can absolutely help a person solve ethical problems in complex human relations. I am technically proficient, to some degree, in neuroscience, and have seen its utility. Literary training is no guarantor of ethical behavior, either, but it can provide certain sorts of experience and practice in solving real, complex human relations. I argue for the combination of humanities-oriented classical education with a maths & sciences-savvy classical education. Arguing for the use of scientific understanding: The Zimbardo (Stanford) Prison Experiment. Whether you regard the experiment itself as ethical or not, it has profound impact on our understanding of the circumstances under which such abuses happen. Studies of institutional racism. Direct effect of changes in practice of well-intentioned persons who had been perpetuating the problem. Here's a fact: a person in distress is less likely to receive assistance, the more people there are around. Here's an application: in a crowded cafe, I heard a man swear loudly and suddenly and then start muttering to himself. I looked around, saw that the people sitting near him (who could see him, I couldn't) were unconcerned, and went back to my reading. But I know the above fact, and remembered it, and thought I should check myself if he needed help. He did: he was mentally disabled, and had knocked his hot drink all over himself, and couldn't clean it up or get a new drink. I imagine I was the only person in the room with my little scientific fact to help me navigate the ethical terrain more accurately. There are so many examples of scientific knowledge like this. Given a good understanding of cognitive science/neuroscience, and also of evolutionary biology, no one would attempt the horrific social engineering experiments (think Communism in the USSR and China) of the 20th century. This knowledge is a critical component of our cultural repertoire. SWB has indicated in her writing that she perceives knowledge, particularly knowldege related to science, as perhaps a moral neutral. I disagree. I believe that truth is a moral good. It can be used by evil or misguided persons, but it swings the balance further toward the side of the angels. You could argue my examples tend toward the biological/neuro, and what does physics have to say for itself; well, you'd have to ask a physicist :). Regarding Oppenheimer: what he said was _true_. It was technically sweet, somebody was going to do it. Oppenheimer didn't claim that this was the optimal or desirable state of affairs. It's sort of like saying that Everest, being the highest mountain, is such a technically sweet challenge that people will continue to kill themselves scaling it, and convince friends to join them in the adventure. And unlike scaling Everest, the physics Oppenheimer did wouldn't kill people unless a great deal of trouble was gone to to make it able to kill people. Oppenheimer dedicated himself to preventing weaponization of technology; and recall that the Manhattan Project was the result of Einstein desperately trying to convince the American gov't that the Germans were close to developing the bomb and needed to be beaten to it. You may disagree with his analysis, given hindsight, of course. But being incensed at scientists for saying things that are true is something that obstructs truth, I find. Criticizing a true statement b/c it is morally irritating or offensive is not useful, esp. when serious things are being discussed. Edited February 28, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The Greeks were not concerned with handing down generations of culture &c. :svengo: I find them more concerned with what was true, and what was beautiful, and what was good also; and what was physically functional and practical generally later, it is true. I think we are talking past each other. What is culture, if not a society's sense of the true, the good and the beautiful, as embodied in its poetry, its intellectual studies (including mathematics), its uses of technology, its political systems, etc.? Regarding Oppenheimer: what he said was _true_. It was technically sweet, somebody was going to do it. Oppenheimer didn't claim that this was the optimal or desirable state of affairs. (...) But being incensed at scientists for saying things that are true is something that obstructs truth, I find. Criticizing a true statement b/c it is morally irritating or offensive is not useful, esp. when serious things are being discussed. The scholar who gave that talk (himself a professor of physics) didn't say that he was personally incensed at Robert Oppenheimer. :confused: He said that these words were "instructive" and "frightening." And he also gave some suggestions for considering how we might deal with this serious situation we're experiencing, in which a narrowed, technology-driven education creates people who are constantly pushing forward to new discoveries, but are not equipped to deal with the ramifications. Ah, well, I think we differ fundamentally. I myself have noticed that persons with the most access to literary works do not tend to have the most advanced personal ethics. (...) At any rate, I conceive of the role of ethics in classical education to be central in such a way that it should be explicit: here I have found the Charlotte Mason philosophy, and focus on character, resonates with my ideas. The authors of TWTM, who also suggested that studying Latin teaches "humility", do have a view similar to yours ... Are you sure that you've understood the approach to ethics that's suggested in TWTM? Because I'm pretty sure that you aren't understanding my view. We aren't talking about downloading as many texts as possible to children's brains. ;) Classical educators (including the ancient ones) used a relatively small selection of works that they believed to be important. The students worked with these by imitation, and also -- especially with older children -- in dialogues with the teacher. It was through the imitation of the examples, and through the dialogues, that both the language tools and the values were imparted. The authors of TWTM have some helpful suggestions about what sorts of issues could be included in these "great book" discussions. At the same time, they emphasize that it's the responsibility of the parents and their faith community to teach specific morals. They do recommend that students take an ethics course in high school, and give many possible resources, but again, they don't think that this can be done in a neutral way. "Rhetoric involves an intensive discussion of social ethics, the nature of good and evil, individual responsibility, and the extent to which the manipulation of emotions is morally acceptable. None of these issues can be tackled without a grasp of ethics. And ethics is, itself, inseparable from our view of God, our belief about the nature of humankind, and our expectations of society." (p. 585) I'm not sure how the book could possibly be any more explicit than this, given that it's intended for a wide readership of different faiths. For some specific examples of how this plays out in real life, you might look into Jesuit education, or some of the more recent books from Reformed Protestant writers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 :svengo: I think we are talking past each other. What is culture, if not a society's sense of the true, the good and the beautiful, as embodied in its poetry, its intellectual studies (including mathematics), its uses of technology, its political systems, etc.? Thank you for that thoughtful reply! It'll take me a couple of days to go through it carefully. I did want to ask about your working definition of culture. It sounds like you are working from an idea of the best of a particular culture, when observed from another another culture's perspective? or the own culture's idea of its highest/best forms? offhand, my intuitive feeling for "culture" includes much that is negative -- in the contemporary US, a culture that displays sexualized images of children on magazine covers in supermarket checkouts. Also a culture with ideals of free speech tied to that less-positive culture ... anyhow, what is your feel for the meaning of "culture" to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Thank you for that thoughtful reply! It'll take me a couple of days to go through it carefully. I did want to ask about your working definition of culture. It sounds like you are working from an idea of the best of a particular culture, when observed from another another culture's perspective? or the own culture's idea of its highest/best forms? offhand, my intuitive feeling for "culture" includes much that is negative -- in the contemporary US, a culture that displays sexualized images of children on magazine covers in supermarket checkouts. Also a culture with ideals of free speech tied to that less-positive culture ... anyhow, what is your feel for the meaning of "culture" to you? My feel is that we should try to avoid imposing our own meanings on words. ;) Wikipedia's definition seems more or less representative of current thinking: ----- Culture (Latin: cultura, lit. "cultivation")[1] is a term that has many different inter-related meanings. However, the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses: Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization, or group ---- Going by the last two definitions, everyone has culture. (Even yogurt, as the saying goes.) If we do nothing out of the ordinary, our children are going to be formed by the default culture of the group we're living in. Or we could put considerable time and care into cultivating a different set of attitudes, values, goals, and practices -- also part of our human heritage, and perhaps more specifically of our own family's heritage, but emphasizing the aspects that we have discerned to be higher and more excellent. More cultured. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) My feel is that we should try to avoid imposing our own meanings on words. ;) Wikipedia's definition seems more or less representative of current thinking: ----- Culture (Latin: cultura, lit. "cultivation")[1] is a term that has many different inter-related meanings. However, the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses: Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization, or group ---- Going by the last two definitions, everyone has culture. (Even yogurt, as the saying goes.) If we do nothing out of the ordinary, our children are going to be formed by the default culture of the group we're living in. Or we could put considerable time and care into cultivating a different set of attitudes, values, goals, and practices -- also part of our human heritage, and perhaps more specifically of our own family's heritage, but emphasizing the aspects that we have discerned to be higher and more excellent. More cultured. :) It sounds like you are talking about culture in the sense of the "best", which makes a lot of sense for sure. For the purposes of coming to terms with each other, maybe we could define it more fully? and decide if another word would be better for this conversation. It is precisely because "we should try to avoid imposing our own meanings on words ;)" that I prefer the third definition of culture. Excellence in taste and high culture is a matter of opinion. Certainly a consensus emerges, in that our current culture will tend to define certain aspects of Greek culture as excellent and in good taste, but it is more subjective than I'd like. When you say that we should be imparting "high culture" I am uneasy, because I want to give our children the best, and "high culture" includes things I would exclude, and excludes things I'd want to bring in. In any society I am familiar with (I am particularly thinking about ancient Greece, classical China, the contemporary Middle East & contemporary US, the highest culture certainly includes things of classical value -- that have stood the test of time -- but also elements that are primarily status-elements, because they require unusual resources to acquire. The status-elements are usually tied to a distancing from actual, and especially physical, work and humble activities. Each culture has reflective persons who reject the excesses and work toward what we might call "plainness" or "simplicity", but these are reactions to/commentaries on the dominant high culture and not the embodiment of it. ... it is dinner-hour here! so I will go. What do you think of this? What do other people think? ETA: the constraint of the definition #1 to humanities I think is counter to a useful definition of culture in this discussion, since as you mentioned earlier a society's technological and mathematical excellences are an important part of the culture. Wikipedia on high culture: High culture is a term, now used in a number of different ways in academic discourse, whose most common meaning is the set of cultural products, mainly in the arts, held in the highest esteem by a culture. In more popular terms, it is the culture of an elite such as the aristocracy or intelligentsia, but also defined as a repository of a broad cultural knowledge, as a way of transcending the class system. It is contrasted with the low culture or popular culture of, variously, the less well-educated, barbarians, Philistines, or the masses.[1] There is a nod to "also-defined" as a broad cultural knowledge, but I note that there is no specification of goodness, esp. moral goodness; though I am sure works on moral goodness would be encompassed in the culture. I also note that there is a bit of a contrast btw. most highly esteemed culture, and the repository of broad knowledge. All in all, it might be useful to use "high culture" when that is our particular meaning? but maybe not. I admit that I have been terminally unimpressed by the average quality of the highly cultured people I know. High culture does not immediately relate to, or confer, what I want to impress upon my children. Also by the average ethical qualities of the writers, artists, scientists, et al. that produce works of the highest caliber in a given society. You may have different experiences? Edited March 1, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 When you say that we should be imparting "high culture" I am uneasy :confused: If you go back and read what I wrote, I didn't use that term at all. I did say that becoming "more cultured," AKA having "more culture," means having more cultivation of those qualities that are discerned to be higher or more excellent. It's clear that different cultures are going to have some different ideas as to the specifics of what these are. (I'm not about to go near that can of worms!) ETA: the constraint of the definition #1 to humanities I think is counter to a useful definition of culture in this discussion, since as you mentioned earlier a society's technological and mathematical excellences are an important part of the culture. I think you're reading too much into my citing of the Wikipedia entry. It was never my intent to define "culture;" that's a huge topic, far beyond the scope of this conversation. All that I was trying to point out is that, while the word is often used to refer impartially to various attributes of a given society, its original meaning has more to do with those attributes that are deliberately tended and cultivated as something desirable. In the context of discussions about educational goals, I think the latter usage tends to be more relevant, and thus more common. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) :confused: If you go back and read what I wrote, I didn't use that term at all. I did say that becoming "more cultured," AKA having "more culture," means having more cultivation of those qualities that are discerned to be higher or more excellent. It's clear that different cultures are going to have some different ideas as to the specifics of what these are. (I'm not about to go near that can of worms!) I think you're reading too much into my citing of the Wikipedia entry. It was never my intent to define "culture;" that's a huge topic, far beyond the scope of this conversation. All that I was trying to point out is that, while the word is often used to refer impartially to various attributes of a given society, its original meaning has more to do with those attributes that are deliberately tended and cultivated as something desirable. In the context of discussions about educational goals, I think the latter usage tends to be more relevant, and thus more common. :) Okay, am happy to drop fussing over the meaning of culture. Culture per se is not on my list of educational goals anyhow. I would like to find our common ground and identify it clearly, so that the conversation can be productive and true. Does this seem a useful step to you? What might you suggest? -- in the back of my mind is a vague recollection of Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book", and his concept of "coming to terms" -- of understanding the key words & ideas clearly ... ETA: I have no desire to be pedantic. I detest pedantry. Am hoping that if we are careful and precise in our language, and find points of common definitions and agreements, we will be able to avoid talking past each other. When you disagreed with my idea of culture, provided an alternative, and then said you'd never meant to define it, I was left feeling confused and frustrated because I really, really want to get to the heart of whatever our difference in perspective is. I suspect this difference or misunderstanding is fundamental to our society and not just to this thread, and I'd like to understand it well. I will ask for extra patience as I try to work out precisely is being said and intended. Not easy over the internet! thank you again for having this conversation, and persisting in clarifying your thoughts. Edited March 1, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 When you disagreed with my idea of culture, provided an alternative, and then said you'd never meant to define it, I was left feeling confused and frustrated because I really, really want to get to the heart of whatever our difference in perspective is. I suspect this difference or misunderstanding is fundamental to our society and not just to this thread, and I'd like to understand it well. To be honest, I would just as soon take a break from this conversation. It seems as if we're going in circles. I also get the uncomfortable feeling that many of the things I'm saying are being twisted to fit some stereotype. I'm not an ambassador sent by "the other side" (whoever they are). I'm just me. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 To be honest, I would just as soon take a break from this conversation. It seems as if we're going in circles. I also get the uncomfortable feeling that many of the things I'm saying are being twisted to fit some stereotype. I'm not an ambassador sent by "the other side" (whoever they are). I'm just me. I'm friends with the CTO of a high tech corporation, and also with an indie musician who named himself after a condiment. :) This is a wonderful idea! I also feel we are going in circles and have been frustrated. I am sorry to hear that you are feeling stereotyped, and esp. your words twisted, because that's not what's going on in my head and because I wish I had been able to clearly communicate. I hope that all is well with you & yours, and will take time over the spring to read the references you kindly sent. blessings, and :grouphug: ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Okay! :grouphug: Just wanted to add that if you'd like to discuss ways to make elementary math more inspiring, and introducing children to the wonder of it (preferably without just piling on more and more curriculum, and more manipulatives that my toddler will eat), I would love to hear your ideas about that. Maybe on the K-8 board? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.