Who does NOT do 'classical' ed?

[Hunter]

 

There doesn't seem to be much sense in taking our brightest minds, and giving them something closer to the limited vocational education that was previously given to those who showed little promise for academic success, innovation, or leadership. (Cf. John Taylor Gatto's writings.)

 

This was one of the things I was trying to touch on last Sunday in the handwork and manual training thread.

 

I'm not sure where the balance is.

[Amie]

.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Amie

[8filltheheart]

The thing is, throughout the history of classical education -- from the Greeks onward -- the "whole individual" was taught with an emphasis on qualitative reasoning (the trivium) before graduating to the emphasis on quantitative reasoning (the quadrivium). This is the order of learning that formed so many great mathematicians and scientists. Consider the famous drawing of the tower, with grammar at the bottom and astronomy at the top. It was quite deliberate. During the last 150 years in the United States, educational reforms -- driven by the demands of industry for more innovation and skilled workers, and justified by the desire to boost the national economy -- threw out this order in favor of more math and science courses. If one reads those debates, it's clear that the advocates for this new approach saw themselves as opposed to classical education. They were keen to get rid of the emphasis on the humanities, especially Latin and Greek, which they saw as elitist, old-fashioned, and (worst of all, from their perspective) impractical.

 

If some homeschoolers believe that it would be possible to increase the math and science curriculum in the elementary and secondary years, without diminishing the traditional role of the classical languages, logic and rhetoric, and great literature -- that would be something different. I guess it would be a new hybrid of classical and technology-oriented education. But going by the experience of brick & mortar schools in the early 20th century US and contemporary Europe, and families on the high school board, I'm not sure that this is possible to any great extent. In that sense, I think Beth is just being realistic. Though I hope she'll reconsider at some point.

 

BTW, I suspect that our family enjoys science as much as anyone's here. My children's father and both grandfathers have been engineers, I started out as a physics major, and we have Snap Circuits, K'Nex, Make Magazine, and a jar of snails. :) We just don't consider those things to be part of school (except the snails... they are much more conducive to qualitative discussions). So in the early years, our homeschool and Beth's might look quite similar. But by middle school, if we stay on this path, they will likely be very different.

 

My own objection to the "STEM" acronym isn't that it encourages young people to pursue math- and science-related careers, but that it lumps a bunch of them together in a way that's almost meaningless from the perspective of classical education.

 

Math and astronomy = pure learning, branches of the quadrivium, highest expression of the liberal arts

 

Engineering = applied subject, taught in a professional school, but traditionally preceded by a liberal arts education (as believed to be important for those who would be leaders in industry and society)

 

Various technicians = practical workers in industry, historically given a basic 3 R's education and then taught in technical schools or through apprenticeships

 

There doesn't seem to be much sense in taking our brightest minds, and giving them something closer to the limited vocational education that was previously given to those who showed little promise for academic success, innovation, or leadership. (Cf. John Taylor Gatto's writings.) It seems entirely backwards to me. My sense is that people who are passionate about science might want to question the evidence behind the plans of some of the so-called "STEM" proponents.

 

(For those who don't read the Accelerated board, we recently had a wee chat about this over there :lol: -- step right up as Serendipitous Journey and I put each other through the wringer...)

Eleanor, I'm multi-tasking so perhaps I am misreading your post. But, as I am reading it right now, I believe I disagree.

 

I "lived" where Beth is right now. It was my philosophy for about 15 yrs. I spent hrs "yelling" in my mind at Tracy Simmons b/c I so strongly disagreed w/him. To my chagrin, I would have a completely different reaction if I read Climbing Parnassus now. :tongue_smilie: If anyone is unfamiliar w/Simmons, you can listen to one of his lectures for free through this link http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Languages/-/Climbing-Parnassus/15310 )

 

I am actually embarrassed now by my original pov b/c I no longer agree w/myself. :blushing: :lol: So, where does that leave me??? ;)

 

I am at the point where I realize I was wrong in rejecting the importance of Latin. Latin studies are a focus in our house now. I am shifting my teaching focus more stringently to good and great books vs. the way I was teaching history and lit. However, I am NOT changing my teaching toward math and science at all (unless increasing more emphasis on problem-solving counts. ;) Not that we were ever slackers there to begin with!)

 

I have children that "think" mathematically. I have witnessed what young individuals are capable of achieving and that sort of mathematical mental acumen needs to be nurtured just as much as processing in the liberal arts areas. I completely disagree w/the suggestion that my children would be "ahead" or even at an equal level mathematically compared to where they will ultimately end up if there had been less focus on math and more focus on liberal arts at a younger age. True mathematical reasoning is a skill that needs the same sort of mental stretching development as literary acumen. (FWIW, I also see math as a subject as a far different skill than "doing math." )

 

I have no idea if that makes any sense to anyone else or not. (it does to me. ;) )

Edited March 22, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart
deleted link.....;)

[serendipitous journey]

(For those who don't read the Accelerated board, we recently had a wee chat about this over there :lol: -- step right up as Serendipitous Journey and I put each other through the wringer...)

 

:lol:, indeed! I :001_wub: People Who Care Passionately ... and I won't risk derailing the thread to go further into this, but must point out that the tower is Medieval ...

Edited March 22, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[Mama Lynx]

It sounds like you're saying that perhaps you're at Eleanor's second paragraph? You're maintaining a high degree of math and science education, but you've realized that it's better to do so while also teaching Latin, great literature, history, etc?

[Penelope]

History-focused (or chronological history) is NOT the definition of classical. :D

 

I consider us classical all the way through, but we are heavily focused on math and science here as dc reach high school. We also study great literature and Greek/Latin, logic and rhetoric.

 

I think following a chronological hsitory sequence is just one thing people grab to label themselves classical without thinking about the method behind it. Some say they are classical because they do Latin with their A Beka boxed curriculum. It doesn't matter what they call themselves, but it does matter when a definition of classical becomes hung up on one thing (Latin, history) and people start missing the point of classical education.

 

Yes! :iagree:

 

I am gathering that it is not so much the curriculum that makes it classical. For a time I went to a Christian school that taught grammar every year, chronological history, good books, and did memory work. I look back and am grateful for the grammar, but it is not what I think of as a classical education, despite fulfilling a lot of the checklist from TWTM for those grades. (I do see TWTM as classical, just pointing out that it is not a checklist).

 

In some ways, in the hs world, "classical", much like "Charlotte Mason", is a label used any way a person or curriculum wishes to use it.

[Mama Lynx]

Thanks, Eleanor. This is how my family approaches classical education, too. My husband is an engineer, and most of my kids are strongly math/science oriented. But I keep the focus on classical languages, grammar, logic, great books, and the humanities. In no way does that mean my kids are not also getting an education that will serve them well to be engineers and scientists.

 

There is still *time,* after teaching those important things, to pursue science and technology, and even to do it well - especially if you have a naturally scientifically-oriented household.

[Dmmetler]

If I google what I do, "classical" is the best fit. However, my DD seems to have skipped the grammar stage in her thinking entirely, and jumped to logic-y rhetoric-y thinking early. I' have said that her behavior was closer to her age, but I just spent a week with my bright, active, wonderful nieces, and they seem much younger than DD in a lot of ways, so I don't know. I think I can best classify what we do with "what works for DD", which means lots of languages early, lots of focus on myth, legends, and history, lots of math, and lots of time to read and explore. But our first history cycle lasted less than 2 years, we've never managed to do just one science topic at a time, DD regularly will go for a period where she'll spend hours on one subject, like Grammar, translating Latin or Greek, geometry, or writing a book, and it seems cruel to make her stop. At any given moment, you can look at what materials we use and what DD's doing, and it will likely be recognizable to someone familiar with various Neo-classical books as classical education, but the sum total looks nothing like TWTM.

[8filltheheart]

It sounds like you're saying that perhaps you're at Eleanor's second paragraph? You're maintaining a high degree of math and science education, but you've realized that it's better to do so while also teaching Latin, great literature, history, etc?

 

Probably yes, but not completely. For example, I think history is going to be quite "less" of a subject than it could (or perhaps even should) be for my ds during 11th and 12th grade. He will be taking sophomore college level science and math classes starting in 11th grade. He wants to do additional independent astronomy studies. W/only so many hrs in a day, he can't do the "best" in all. So, ultimately, something has to be "less." History will most likely be the course. I'm sure that is NOT what Eleanor would agree w/. ;)

[Mama Lynx]

Yes! :iagree:

 

I am gathering that it is not so much the curriculum that makes it classical. For a time I went to a Christian school that taught grammar every year, chronological history, good books, and did memory work. I look back and am grateful for the grammar, but it is not what I think of as a classical education, despite fulfilling a lot of the checklist from TWTM for those grades. (I do see TWTM as classical, just pointing out that it is not a checklist).

 

In some ways, in the hs world, "classical", much like "Charlotte Mason", is a label used any way a person or curriculum wishes to use it.

 

I very much agree - chronological history, or a four-year approach to history, is not at all the definition of a classical education. This is why I urge people to read a few books on the theory behind classical education. Read the books, form your philosophy, and then use curriculum or whatever that fits your philosophy and your goals. Classical is not at all what curriculum you use - you don't even need one.

[ElizaG]

Probably yes, but not completely. For example, I think history is going to be quite "less" of a subject than it could (or perhaps even should) be for my ds during 11th and 12th grade. He will be taking sophomore college level science and math classes starting in 11th grade. He wants to do additional independent astronomy studies. W/only so many hrs in a day, he can't do the "best" in all. So, ultimately, something has to be "less." History will most likely be the course. I'm sure that is NOT what Eleanor would agree w/. ;)

I actually think it should be possible for a bright, well-taught student to cover the basics of the trivium by around age 16. That seems like a reasonable time to start specializing, for those like your son who already have strong interests in one direction or another. And for those who have no clear idea, it's a good time to start thinking about the future while continuing with a more general course of studies. In some places, this special pre-university period is built into the educational system (e.g., Quebec's CEGEPs).

 

My concern is more with the people saying "we're a math and science family," or "my child is a budding engineer," and using this to justify major changes in emphasis the whole way through. This is what I'd call "not classical," in the traditional sense advocated by Circe and others -- though it does seem very common on these boards.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Eleanor

[Chrysalis Academy]

I would say at this point we are following a "traditional" educational path using many neoclassical ideas and traditional educational methods, skipping back over a lot of the 20th century educational reform ideas that dumbed down American schools. I aspire to the true and the beautiful, the good books leading to the great books, and the learning of languages, but in the end I am doing some sort of amalgam of my understanding of these ideas and whatever else I feel will best help my children become wise, educated adults who are able to fulfill their goals for themselves.

 

:iagree:I am reading "Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms" by Diane Ravitch. I am shocked at the history of education I'm reading, and how profoundly undemocratic and unegalitarian the "progressive" reforms of the early 20th century were. I always thought I was a progressive . . . ;) but not by this definition.

[justamouse]

:iagree:I am reading "Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms" by Diane Ravitch. I am shocked at the history of education I'm reading, and how profoundly undemocratic and unegalitarian the "progressive" reforms of the early 20th century were. I always thought I was a progressive . . . ;) but not by this definition.

 

Huh, I always knew it was bad--now I'll have to read this book, too.

Edited March 22, 2012 by justamouse

[4Kiddos]

I haven't finished reading this thread yet but could someone tell me what STEM means? A whole bunch of you have mentioned it and I don't know what it is. I am sorry for such a dumb question!

[Chrysalis Academy]

 

I "lived" where Beth is right now. It was my philosophy for about 15 yrs. I spent hrs "yelling" in my mind at Tracy Simmons b/c I so strongly disagreed w/him. To my chagrin, I would have a completely different reaction if I read Climbing Parnassus now. :tongue_smilie: If anyone is unfamiliar w/Simmons, you can listen to one of his lectures for free through this link http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Languages/-/Climbing-Parnassus/15310 )

 

 

Just listened to this, and finally ordered Climbing Parnassus. This is definitely an articulation of the ideal education I want for myself, and for my children. So call me an aspiring classical educator!

 

Paraphrasing the final sentences:

 

Classical education is not to make us better than others, it is to make us better than ourselves. And that, in the end, is a worthy goal of education and of life.

 

Amen!

Edited March 22, 2012 by rroberts707

[PollyOR]

I haven't finished reading this thread yet but could someone tell me what STEM means? A whole bunch of you have mentioned it and I don't know what it is. I am sorry for such a dumb question!

 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

 

Don't worry. I had to look it up too. :)

[ElizaG]

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

 

Don't worry. I had to look it up too. :)

According to Wikipedia, one of the three major goals for STEM education identified by the US National Academies is to:

 

 

• enlarge the pipeline of students prepared to enter college and graduate with STEM degrees

 

I think that is a rather telling metaphor. What are they, some sort of effluent going through a treatment plant? :lol:

[stripe]

According to Wikipedia, one of the three major goals for STEM education identified by the US National Academies is to:

 

 

• enlarge the pipeline of students prepared to enter college and graduate with STEM degrees

 

I think that is a rather telling metaphor. What are they, some sort of effluent going through a treatment plant? :lol:

Ugh, that's really awful. Poor students -- they hadn't had their heads squeezed so hard since they made their entrance into the world!

 

Not to mention, stems, pipes, you'd think with all these linguistic flourishes, this was for English majors!

[8filltheheart]

Just listened to this, and finally ordered Climbing Parnassus. This is definitely an articulation of the ideal education I want for myself, and for my children. So call me an aspiring classical educator!

 

Paraphrasing the final sentences:

 

Classical education is not to make us better than others, it is to make us better than ourselves. And that, in the end, is a worthy goal of education and of life.

 

Amen!

 

I'm glad you were able to listen to it and get a lot out of it. You know, it was probably my heated argument w/myself over his position that actually ended up pushing me in this direction. :lol: (on a thread on the high school board, I posted that part of our successes in homeschooling is that I am 99% stubborn. I was corrected by another poster and had to correct it to 99.8%. ;) But, even w/my thick hide, I am eventually able to see my GLARING errors! :tongue_smilie: )

[serendipitous journey]

{I wrote an extensive post, then removed it; I failed utterly to seek first to understand, and will post content when the littles are in bed}

Edited March 22, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[serendipitous journey]

I was thinking about the OP regarding seeking truth, beauty and excellence but not classically ... it seems clear to me that the heart of "Classical" education on these boards is tied to the medieval university/academic conception of classical, and is defined not by its goals so much as its means. So that classical education in our house, which is seeking roots in Ancient Greece, is simply not classical in this medieval sense.

 

-- Almost nobody would be interested in a Medieval Education, and for good reason. It seems to me worthy of some thought, that "classical" has come to mean what emerged from the medieval university system and the schools designed to feed into it, and wandered through the Renaissance and the last couple of centuries, acquiring new Great Books all the way. Not that this is wrong, and I know it is what Classical means to Most Folks, but it is an interesting assumption.

 

I think Eleanor's point regarding the Trivium vs Quadrivium is irrelevant. No classicists here plan to teach the Quadrivium as the pinnacle of their education, and they do include Quadrivium topics during the Trivium -- who waits for a child to master Rhetoric before teaching her Music? The Quadrivium has been completely lopped off the tower. To understand its original primacy would be Another Thread. I think Eleanor's basic point was that the Trivium was mastered before the Quadrivium, so it is perfectly Classical to put rigorous or advanced maths off until post-Trivium; but that point is not well made if she does not accept the full tower herself.

 

Also, basic maths were always taught with basic literacy in the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman worlds (I understand), and post-Renaissance classically educated boys were taught Euclid well before they were masters of Rhetoric -- Euclid is traditional, dreaded school-room material right along with Latin and geography. So I think the place of quantitative skill was somewhat fluid, and at any rate not what anyone today would try to emulate. My own position on advanced maths is that TWTM high school math goal of college-prep-level is ridiculously and jarringly limited, and that high school math should include at least a course of statistics. If anyone is interested in a defense of that, you can PM me; it would be discursive in this thread.

 

I am mystified by Eleanor's critique of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math as classically meaningless and as designed to give students the equivalent of vocational training. I suppose "STEM" is classically meaningless; so is electromagnetism, the study of which is a science that required the development of new technologies which were brought into mainstream availability by engineers and whose principles are not describable without math. STEM is a new word coined by a a group of American educators and it never tried to reflect the medieval university's breakdown of science. Or the ancient Greeks', for that matter; they were VERY conflicted about the use of math for anything practical.

 

Math and astronomy = pure learning, branches of the quadrivium, highest expression of the liberal arts

 

I don't think anyone arguing against a STEM focus really and truly believes that math and astronomy are the highest expression of the liberal arts. Correct me if I am wrong, and tell me that you do not teach music until the child is ready for the Quadrivium and you do not consider your children educated until they have mastered Astronomy and the requisite maths for calculating celestial movements to the standards of Kepler: then I could address this. STEM should be held to your actual standards, not to hypothetical ones.

 

Engineering = applied subject, taught in a professional school, but traditionally preceded by a liberal arts education (as believed to be important for those who would be leaders in industry and society)

Also not a critique of STEM. No one is arguing that American children be devoid of liberal arts education when they argue for increased engineering expertise. The US government STEM goals include enhanced STEM performance but not a drop in liberal arts know-how. And engineers are a fairly well-educated group: really they are. A poll would show significantly above-average liberal arts knowledge.

 

Various technicians = practical workers in industry, historically given a basic 3 R's education and then taught in technical schools or through apprenticeships

 

This is silly. Technology does not equal technician. Good grief.

 

Technician, by the way, is not necessarily a poorly-educated and easily replace automaton: the lab technicians I know have bachelor degrees as a minimum, from liberal arts colleges, love good books and/or good food :) and want, among other things, excellent liberal arts educations for their children.

 

STEM makes quite good sense as a unit. Doing the best science often requires one to design new tools (technology) and, of course, build them (engineering); math is required at every step, and most especially to rigorously describe what is observed and figure out what it signifies. Of course it doesn't map onto the quadrivium.

 

The more germane question is, how do you (where "you" is a self-defined non-STEM classical educator) conceive of maths and sciences in your framework? Or, if you don't have a framework yet, what is necessary and sufficient for a satisfactory math & science component of a classical education as you imagine it. I think I'll start a thread on it ... :)

 

and :grouphug: to all. My kudos to, well, all of us, who are in the thick of it and doing our honest best & trying to encourage, enlighten, and support each other.

[NASDAQ]

I use fairly old school books and have more than a passing interest in them. I have read Left Back and about half of Diane Ratvich's opus. I don't understand this notion of STEM as vocational.

 

Arithmetic has always been a primary school concern, along with reading and writing of one's native language. Geometry and some natural science follow after that. Latin and Greek have generally been left to the secondary or university prep level.

 

I can't overlook that I am preparing children to live in this world, and not the world of two hundred years ago. Latin has its value, but it is less useful than it was previously. At one time, Latin _was_ a vocational subject of sorts, whereas now it is a niche interest. Math has become much more important. At the same time, my children are going to be competing with children from other countries who have been spending much longer on math from a much younger age.

 

If I were able to pick which 'bent' my children had, I'd pick that they have a STEM bent rather than an arts bent. It's been my experience that people with a STEM bent (provided English is their first language) have more options, and are able to dabble or dip into arts subjects fairly easily. The reverse is not true. By university, most arts majors do not have the mathematical facility necessary even to understand many social science subjects, let alone to take hard science course. This is a crying shame.

[ElizaG]

Ana, I'm not sure where to begin. It seems as if you're going into many of the points that I already addressed in the thread on the Accelerated board. At the time, I questioned some of your assertions about Greek education, and gave some suggested reading that backs up what I'm saying (Marrou's History of Education in Antiquity). If you have sources to support your opinions, I'd be interested to see them.

 

The Quadrivium has been completely lopped off the tower.

No, the whole tower has been neglected. Personally, I would love for my children to have the opportunity to study some version of the traditional Quadrivium, but it doesn't currently exist anywhere in an integrated way, and we aren't in the position of setting it up in our living room. So our children will just have to be content with the separate subjects, to whatever extent they choose to study them in high school, college, and so on indefinitely through a lifetime of learning.

[SunnyDays]

Ana, great post. I agree with your angle on this.

 

 

I can't overlook that I am preparing children to live in this world, and not the world of two hundred years ago. Latin has its value, but it is less useful than it was previously. At one time, Latin _was_ a vocational subject of sorts, whereas now it is a niche interest. Math has become much more important. At the same time, my children are going to be competing with children from other countries who have been spending much longer on math from a much younger age.

 

Nasdaq, I wanted to comment on this... you've made a very succinct explanation of why I find it hard to become what's considered a strictly classical homeschooler. While the arts, languages, and literature have always been important and always will be, there are technologies and intelligences that couldn't have been imagined 2000 years ago.

 

My son finds the former interesting, and I want to give him a base in those and make sure he has a fine appreciation for them. But he lives and breathes math and technology. He's already dabbling in early algebra topics, and he's experimented with several different computer programming languages and applications. I cannot see limiting him to basic arithmetic, and telling him he can get into deeper mathematics later, after he's read Homer.

 

As has been mentioned, I too wonder if I fit in here. I came here knowing that I wasn't going to be firmly in a classical camp, although I do take inspiration from classical methods. Classical education, to me, is more about using tried and true methods, and developing a well rounded person, than about any particular subjects or curriculum.

 

It's wonderful that there are many ways to help our children develop into well-educated adults. :)

[ElizaG]

My son finds the former interesting, and I want to give him a base in those and make sure he has a fine appreciation for them. But he lives and breathes math and technology. He's already dabbling in early algebra topics, and he's experimented with several different computer programming languages and applications. I cannot see limiting him to basic arithmetic, and telling him he can get into deeper mathematics later, after he's read Homer.

Nobody's saying that you should limit him to basic arithmetic, or delineate the sequence so rigidly. :confused: It's more of a general principle, and the concern is from the other direction -- i.e., a classical student wouldn't be allowed to skip Homer so that he could spend that time doing advanced math or computer programming. But if he had some free time, then sure, no problem.

[stripe]

I am mystified by Eleanor's critique of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math as classically meaningless and as designed to give students the equivalent of vocational training. I suppose "STEM" is classically meaningless; so is electromagnetism, the study of which is a science that required the development of new technologies which were brought into mainstream availability by engineers and whose principles are not describable without math. STEM is a new word coined by a a group of American educators and it never tried to reflect the medieval university's breakdown of science. Or the ancient Greeks', for that matter; they were VERY conflicted about the use of math for anything practical.

I think it's also worth examining just how much math/science there was during those times (not much! - therefore the amount one was expected to learn in one's lifetime was a different matter completely; working on fractions, for example, or squaring numbers was considered rather advanced in certain time periods), and might be more instructive to look to the Islamic world during its Golden Age, when medicine in particular was significantly advanced, but so were things like trigonometry. It would be worth trying to emulate this broadbased intellectual bloom as well.

 

Technician, by the way, is not necessarily a poorly-educated and easily replace automaton: the lab technicians I know have bachelor degrees as a minimum, from liberal arts colleges, love good books and/or good food :) and want, among other things, excellent liberal arts educations for their children.

I highly recommend the book Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work, which addresses the claim that the trades are mindless. The author, Matthew Crawford, has a PhD in Philosophy and left his work at a think tank to be a motorcycle mechanic, which he finds more intellectually stimulating.

 

Also I believe there is a TED talk regarding the importance of statistics?

[Beth in SW WA]

:bigear:

Fascinating conversation. Thank you to those who are sharing your vision for your kids.

 

I hesitate to write more because I'm gathering my thoughts....and not quite sure how to respond to some comments. I'll have more time this weekend to share some coherent thoughts. :)

[Amie]

:lurk5: I'm enjoying this conversation; thanks for the opportunity to "listen in".

And thanks for that book rec, Stripe. I found it at our library, so it is next on my reading list.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Amie

[Leimarie]

We use Heart of Dakota, so we're definitely a bit more Charlotte Mason style than Classical.

[Beth in SW WA]

In that sense, I think Beth is just being realistic. Though I hope she'll reconsider at some point. ;)

 

So in the early years, our homeschool and Beth's might look quite similar. But by middle school, if we stay on this path, they will likely be very different.

 

I'm fairly certain we will stick with a strong STEM bent here. I won't forsake math or science for Latin or Greek in middle school. We read more in one week than most read in a month. I'm not worried about literature. It's already front & center w/ minimal effort on my part.

 

My own objection to the "STEM" acronym isn't that it encourages young people to pursue math- and science-related careers, but that it lumps a bunch of them together in a way that's almost meaningless from the perspective of classical education.

 

There doesn't seem to be much sense in taking our brightest minds, and giving them something closer to the limited vocational education that was previously given to those who showed little promise for academic success, innovation, or leadership.

 

I'm confident that my ds's AP calc & physics (next year) along w/ college algebra & trig this year -- combined with extensive leadership skills gained at work, church, school, sports and his community -- will prepare him adequately for the demands of the future. He'll be the engineer-manager because he'll stand out among the crowd. (If he chooses that path.)

 

 

 

Ds has a stack of college programming books on his nightstand -- next to his Bible, Bonhoeffer and Steve Jobs' biography. I would prefer he read those than Homer, Dickens or Hawthorne in his minimal spare time. He is self-teaching Python & C. He studies his Bible for personal growth -- and sermon-prep for school chapels (He is student council Chaplain and worship leader.) He's loved by all his teachers and school staff. They appreciate the zeal he brings to the school. He is a natural leader. I'm not too worried that he won't be successful -- despite his lack of interest in Latin, Greek and or classic lit.

 

Today (Saturday) he was up & awake at 9 after staying up to 3:30 with friends here following a night of ballroom dancing at his spring formal. He is filling out the Common App today, prepping for his second SAT, working, running a few miles (trying to break the state record), working on Arduino projects, homework, practicing for worship tomorrow and playing in a soccer game tonight. He is self-motivated. That encourages me more than if he spent the day reading Virgil or Dante.

 

He regrets the 2 years of Latin in middle school when he would have preferred more math or music. He plays multiple instruments. I should have listened to my inner voice which implored me to take :chillpill:. This is not a 'classical' kid in the literature/languages sense. He'd rather be building, doing, leading and serving.

 

I'm following my instinct this time around. :)

Edited March 25, 2012 by Beth in SW WA
Typo

[Beth in SW WA]

 

I "lived" where Beth is right now. It was my philosophy for about 15 yrs.

 

8, I'm trying to find the link to the thread regarding math & Latin from last year re Cheryl Lowe's article: An Apology For Latin And Math.

 

I remember a fabulous discussion along these lines...

[stripe]

Is it this one?

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269000

[Beth in SW WA]

Is it this one?

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269000

 

Yes! It was Janice's comments that have stuck with me. Thanks, Stripe, for finding it!

 

She is speaking in response to: An Apology For Latin And Math.

 

 

 

 

1. Math is hard because it builds so relentlessly year after year through every year of the child's education. Any skill not mastered one year will make work difficult the next year. It is unforgiving. It has to be overlearned. That is why few students reach a high level in math. They reach a glass ceiling because the cumulative nature of the subject catches up with them. Eventually they are over their heads and quit.

 

2. Math truly educates, transforms, and changes the mind of the student to become like math, orderly, logical, accurate, organized.

 

3. The true purpose of education and all of the subjects we study in school is to develop, shape, and transform the mind and character of the student. The nature of the subject transfers its character to the student's mind.

 

4. Math is important, but it is secondary to language skills. ( In fact, math is dependent upon language skills.)

 

5. A truly educated person can be pretty lousy at math, because language skills are still the measure of the educated person, one who can speak and write with clarity and has power over his native language, English.

 

So is she saying:

1. Math is a terrific subject because it trains the mind.

 

2. Training the mind is the most important thing to do when educating.

 

3. In order to do math well, the student needs language skills; they must be in place first.

 

4. But math is hard; most people have to quit because their foundation wasn't what they thought it was.

 

5. BUT the math-quitters ;) are still considered "educated" because they mastered the language skills - the foundational skills.

 

Conclusion? So what about the math geniuses? Could they GET there unless they mastered those foundational skills without "knowing" it? If mastery of language is foundational to success in mathematics, and a person is successful at mastering mathematics without Latin, how can you conclude that Latin is necessary for mastering language skills?

 

A messy (WRONG!) incomplete proof by contradiction..... cause I HAVE TO GOOOOOOOOO....

 

1. Latin is necessary to educate a child in language.

2. An education in language is necessary to master mathematics.

3. Therefore, an education in Latin is necessary to master mathematics.

 

BUT there are all kinds of math whizzes who never learned Latin. (THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS BLACK SWAAAAAAAAANS!)

 

And the articles states that you can be "educated" without mastering the secondary thing - Mathematics. Fine. A definition.

 

So why the "Let No One Ignorant of Geometry"?

 

(But I still think the quadrivium was more than a list of subjects. And I don't see most folks who hold to Sayers speech chatting about that. At SOME point in my life, I will have the time to dabble in this more. THEN I will be able to talk about this more clearly.)

 

Good heavens, THIS IS A MESS.

 

No mastery of language here.......:D

 

(I've dabbled for years in Latin. I found it fun and interesting. Satisfying too. But I never found it more beautiful than mathematics. It always felt like FLATLAND to me. Heretic - I KNOW!!!!!)

 

I've REALLY got to GO!

more later....hopefully....

 

Peace,

Janice

[FairProspects]

I have children that "think" mathematically. I have witnessed what young individuals are capable of achieving and that sort of mathematical mental acumen needs to be nurtured just as much as processing in the liberal arts areas. I completely disagree w/the suggestion that my children would be "ahead" or even at an equal level mathematically compared to where they will ultimately end up if there had been less focus on math and more focus on liberal arts at a younger age. True mathematical reasoning is a skill that needs the same sort of mental stretching development as literary acumen. (FWIW, I also see math as a subject as a far different skill than "doing math." )

 

I have no idea if that makes any sense to anyone else or not. (it does to me. ;) )

 

 

:hurray: :hurray:

 

I completely agree. I would never have felt this way had I not had a child with one of these mathematical brains, but starting to see how it works has changed some of my perspective.

[Pen]

I also like the "truth, beauty, excellence" motto. I think we are probably "eclectic" homeschoolers--I take ideas that seem useful to my child's particular needs where I can find them--but I don't know, maybe we are something that has some other label...though I am not trying to be whatever that might be. So far any methodology I thought I might try to follow turned out not workable for my particular child. I don't think we can be "classical" as understood by WTM--we don't have Latin or Greek and don't do our studies in cycles with the literature tied to the history. Some subjects (history, science) are very learner interest driven, but I don't allow the 3R's to be up to child's choice, so we are not unschoolers or Sudbury types. We do have a lot of art, literature, some poetry, music, and we still do use some Waldorf materials, but very much violate many Waldorf precepts, including much more emphasis on academics. I do particularly emphasize the skills areas. What is STEM, anyway?.. for all I know we are STEM.

[Beth in SW WA]

I also like the "truth, beauty, excellence" motto. I think we are probably "eclectic" homeschoolers--I take ideas that seem useful to my child's particular needs where I can find them--but I don't know, maybe we are something that has some other label...though I am not trying to be whatever that might be. So far any methodology I thought I might try to follow turned out not workable for my particular child. I don't think we can be "classical" as understood by WTM--we don't have Latin or Greek and don't do our studies in cycles with the literature tied to the history. Some subjects (history, science) are very learner interest driven, but I don't allow the 3R's to be up to child's choice, so we are not unschoolers or Sudbury types. We do have a lot of art, literature, some poetry, music, and we still do use some Waldorf materials, but very much violate many Waldorf precepts, including much more emphasis on academics. I do particularly emphasize the skills areas. What is STEM, anyway?.. for all I know we are STEM.

 

Thankfully WTM is a big tent. I love the variety here. We all pursue beauty, truth and excellence in our own unique ways. I have learned so much here over the years.

 

Thank you!

[Hannah]

I'd put us in the NOT classical camp. Despite reading the books and definitions, I'm not sure that I truly know what classical IS.

 

We do not have a national nor family tradition to draw from for a solid, broad education either. And certainly no philology experience. I have to say I envy Ester Maria that.

 

My experience does not include intentional discourse of the great ideas. I have a STEM background and so have most of our friends. We are a group of very intelligent and highly qualified people (with a couple of PhD’s), but we are not highly educated. Very few of us have been required or have been interested enough to read the classics and no-one has pursued beauty as a foundation of their education.

 

So, given my background, I don’t believe I’m even capable of giving my children a classical education. I do know that thanks to the internet and these boards in particular, my children are getting a much broader and deeper education that I (and my friends) ever had.

 

I am attempting to facilitate an education that allows for questioning, digging up of answers, discussion and forming of opinions.

This includes a solid foundation on which to base these opinions.

I hope that my girls will have the historical perspective to understand how we arrived at the point we are today and how the past shapes the present.

I would like them to have a solid scientific background on how things work and how we impact and can shape our environment.

I also want them to have a foundation of cultural knowledge on which to build their own creativity (the study of great literature, music and art). Added to this is the study of language so that they can express their ideas and opinions.

 

I hope that my own limitations will not hold them back.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Those short time listings for math always make me laugh. Takes 30 min just to find the book, a pencil, a sharpened pencil, paper, oh graph paper, then where the book went at our house.

[Connections]

Forgive me for simplifying a part of this discussion, but it seems to me that there is an underlying "chicken or egg" argument here.

 

Did the child who is mathematically inclined also receive a rich early education in language? Can we really know that the time spent learning Latin was not helpful in later STEM success?

 

At a minimum, we all seem to be focused on creating wonderful learning environments in our homes and that includes good books (usually shared in read alouds and read independently).

 

We tend to discuss what we are doing "for school" here (rightfully so) but we cannot take the learning environment and the learning lifestyle out of the equation. Since we cannot, I do not think we can use personal experience to prove or disprove whether classical education (assuming we have a common definition- which we do not and which further complicates the issue) works or not. A classical education as I understand Kern defines it transcends school hours and curriculum choices.

 

To answer the OP, if a classical education means pursuing truth, wisdom, and beauty and focusing on moral, physical and intellectual virtues, then we are moving in the direction of a classical education. If it means having a unifying theme and keeping Christ at the center of our educational pursuits, then yes, we are classically educating. If it means that rhetoric (Discovery, Arrangement, Elocution, Memory and Delivery) are key to all areas of the curriculum then I embrace classical education.

 

If it means following a specific formula of subjects (which I do not see in Kern's ideas since there does not seem to be a formula), then I am not educating classically.

 

If it means that science and math are unimportant, then I am not a classical educator.

 

To me, the beauty of the Circe discussion thread and of Kern's definition of a classical education is the focus on virtues.

 

I do not think we can try and recreate something that was the sum education in times long past- for today we have technology and sciences that did not factor into the picture centuries ago.

 

But, I am convinced that it is essential to solidify why I am home educating and therefore to recenter myself on how we go about that. We do better when we approach learning as a pursuit of wisdom and virtue and focus on "doing subjects" less. We still encounter, contemplate and discuss literature, history, science, geography, etc. We spent lots of time problem solving and learning math (and Math does stand out as more of a subject- though we try to see and celebrate its relevance in other areas as well).

 

To clarify, I am not arguing with anyone here. I am simply taking so much good, true and beautiful from the refocusing that has been triggered by the Circe thread(s). I am fighting the urge to get tied up in labels and lose sight of what is at the core.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Connections

[stripe]

If it means having a unifying theme and keeping Christ at the center of our educational pursuits, then yes, we are classically educating.

 

yes, this is another issue -- those who may be doing similar activities and having a similar focus on encouraging virtues, but not be Christian.

[justamouse]

Prof E. Christian Kopff talks about just this (STEM/classical ed) in his CiRCE talk, How the Trivium Prepares the Soul for College.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Prof E. Christian Kopff talks about just this (STEM/classical ed) in his CiRCE talk, How the Trivium Prepares the Soul for College.

 

This talk is a *very* compelling argument that the larger conversation can't be allowed to devlove into a STEM vs. Classical debate . . . thanks for suggesting it in this context.

[Ester Maria]

To actually respond to Eleanor, finally :) - I definitely teach my children what I understand to be truth, with major caveats along the way in terms of what one can actually know in the first place and to which phenomena truth is a relevant category through which we may reason (so I have both an epistemological and an 'ontological' caveat incorporated there, in that there are phenomena out there of which it cannot be told that they are "true" or "false"). I also definitely teach them art, but through the prism of skill employed in the formal execution, NOT through the prism of "beauty" or often even the sublime nature of the ideas behind that formal execution. I think art is concrete and that its defining qualities are skill and form, not the master background of ideas or context which motivated them. I do talk of beauty with my children, a lot. Heck, I almost went into art history, I know about art almost more than about letters, and I can relate to it on some immediate levels on which letters can never function. But I parse it differently, as you can see.

 

I am a rather "concrete" type of person. There are concrete skills that are important to me, there is a concrete network of knowledge within which I want them to be able to operate, and there is a concrete cultural inheritance with which they must form their own relationship - my duty is to provide it, not to dictate the kind of relationship they will have with it. The specifics stem from culture, tradition, their own aptitude and general intellect.

 

So, I think in those terms more than in a master philosophy of education way. :)

[Beth in SW WA]

Prof E. Christian Kopff talks about just this (STEM/classical ed) in his CiRCE talk, How the Trivium Prepares the Soul for College.

 

Yes. I have listened to this. I wasn't overly impressed with his logic. Kopff is providing an apologia for the trivium -- grammar, logic, rhetoric. I agree with many of his points but NOT all. Especially this:

 

"Engineering people do a great job in their stem subjects but their particular honors courses...involves no paper and no oral aspect... They claim they don't need it. They can solve problems but they cannot write a 15-30 page essay...They can persuade you of anything but it isn't based on an understanding of the world..of truth."

 

Sorry. I don't buy his argument.

 

This is cause for grave concern? This somehow should persuade me that engineers are less educated than one of Kopff's classical studies students? I think an engineer student has more to be concerned about than parsing Latin or Greek or writing 15-30 page essays. Have you seen a typical electrical engineering course schedule?

 

Ds just observed a computer science class at CU where Kopff works. That is why I took note of his lecture. It was slightly coincidental for me...

 

His speech reminded me of this pic attached...

Edited March 25, 2012 by Beth in SW WA

[justamouse]

[ATTACH]8320[/ATTACH]

 

Yes. I have listened to this. I wasn't overly impressed with his logic. Kopff is providing an apologia for the trivium -- grammar, logic, rhetoric. I agree with many of his points but NOT all. Especially this:

 

"Engineering people do a great job in their stem subjects but their particular honors courses...involves no paper and no oral aspect... They claim they don't need it. They can solve problems but they cannot write an 15-130 page essay...They can persuade you of anything but it isn't based on an understanding of the world..of truth."

 

Sorry. I don't buy his argument.

 

This is cause for grave concern? This somehow should persuade me that engineers are less educated than one of Kopff's classical studies students? I think an engineer student has more to be concerned about than parsing Latin or Greek or writing 15-30 page essays. Have you seen a typical electrical engineering course schedule?

 

Ds just observed a computer science class at CU where Kopff works. That is why I took note of his lecture. It was slightly coincidental for me...

 

His speech reminded me of this pic attached...

 

Well, perhaps Ester Maria's post on the other thread about how there's no either or. It's both and.

 

No one is stopping you from doing it your own way. But to infer that people have to choose is disingenuous.

 

My Dh and I own a company that employs many STEM majors, between the engineers and the chemists, it's practically the whole thing. Our biggest problem is, like Kopff said, finding people who can write. To be in our business, you have to answer to the FDA, which means you have to write, a lot. It's not all about making sure the machines are running, or fixing them (they cost more than some houses, so you'd better be an excellent engineer) or running the spectrometer and the lab equipment, it's writing papers and paperwork for the FDA. So, though your son thinks he'd get zero jobs, we've fired QA/chemists/engineers because they can't write coherently.

 

ETA-there are SOPs for everything. They are BINDERS. Every time you bring in another machine, it needs an SOP. That paperwork in generated in house. Binders and binders and binders. Logs, manuals for the water purification system, it's not just a chemist, or just an engineer.

Edited March 25, 2012 by justamouse

[Beth in SW WA]

Well, perhaps Ester Maria's post on the other thread about how there's no either or. It's both and.

 

No one is stopping you from doing it your own way. But to infer that people have to choose is disingenuous.

 

:confused:

Please explain your last statement.

 

My original post asked: Anyone else feel they aim for beauty, truth and excellence without a label? How does that look?

:bigear:

 

Kopff appears to claim his 'way' is the only way that leads to truth. I could not disagree more.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Beth in SW WA

[justamouse]

:confused:

Please explain your last statement.

This is cause for grave concern? This somehow should persuade me that engineers are less educated than one of Kopff's classical studies students? I think an engineer student has more to be concerned about than parsing Latin or Greek or writing 15-30 page essays. Have you seen a typical electrical engineering course schedule?

You are implying that knowing Latin and Greek are wasted when a person wants to be an engineer.

[Beth in SW WA]

In the last 10 minutes, CNN aired two stories in their segment on innovation and education. I'm sitting here watching it with ds16. It encompasses most of what I feel. Dean Kamen just reiterated what we talk about here daily in our home: STEM is the future.

 

What an exciting time in history to be a student. STEM 'wows' us. It blows our minds. My dds can't get enough. Ds can't get enough.

 

That doesn't imply we don't read classics or pursue beauty, truth and excellence. We will take a different path. I have said before that ds16 doesn't have the luxury at this point to spend hours and hours reading classic lit. It isn't realistic for his goals.

 

Dh didn't receive a classical education -- yet he is the most educated and successful man I know...in every way.

[Beth in SW WA]

You are implying that knowing Latin and Greek are wasted when a person wants to be an engineer.

 

Did you listen to Kopff? He is implying that engineer honors students aren't educated -- don't have access to truth -- because 'they can't write' an essay. (This makes me twitch.)

 

Studying Latin & Greek in college -- when the rigorous demands of a STEM degree are front & center -- is not a prudent use of time. (Speaking of my family's situation only.)

Edited March 25, 2012 by Beth in SW WA
question

[SnowWhite]

I am not a classical educator. I subscribe to the "Git 'er Done!" philosophy of homeschooling. That translates to an eclectic mix of traditional math and LA, plus lit based history and literature, plus technology based applications for some subjects (spelling, vocabulary, science- Plato Learning). My kids wind up with plenty of time to indulge their passions and develop their individual interests.