s/o classical ed & STEM, for Classical Homeschoolers

[poetic license]

 

ETA: regarding "medieval": there is a real tension between someone like myself, who is interested in getting at the best of ancient Greek education and making those goals and ideals workable and relevant today, and someone who is using the standard definition of "classical", which dates to medieval Western Europe resuscitation of classical learning. I consider that jettisoning Greek and Latin if necessary may be reasonable (I intend to teach them myself) whereas the standard classicist will not, and I do not place primary importance on maintaining cultural continuity as a classical goal (it is part of my general educational goals). Also I have more of an emphasis on understanding the physical and global world, which I see as essential to the Greek goals of natural philosophy & citizenship when they are translated to the modern world. But these are not essential to the classical view coming out of the middle ages, which is much more concerned with the transmission of a particular culture as far as I can tell ... I'm sure I'm mangling the other point of view, because I have really failed to internalize it. At any rate, I am very interested in it.

 

Books like the Well Trained Mind sanitize the view of "classical education" and don't really portray it for what hard core classicists consider it to be: the transmission of the Western, Judeo-Christian culture.

 

WTM wouldn't have sold nearly as many copies if it were explicitly hard core on this point. As it is, those of a non-western and non-Christian culture as myself can benefit enough from the WTM to utilize its methods in our homeschools. However, we'd be deluding ourselves if we thought this was true classical education.

 

This is why Latin is emphasized and math/science not so much, because these subjects are not as central to the main goals of a "true" classical education. Of course, given that we live in the modern and not medieval world, STEM subjects simply must take a higher priority if part of one's educational goals is competing in the global economy and keeping up with the massive explosion of scientific understanding in our time.

[serendipitous journey]

Books like the Well Trained Mind sanitize the view of "classical education" and don't really portray it for what hard core classicists consider it to be: the transmission of the Western, Judeo-Christian culture.

 

WTM wouldn't have sold nearly as many copies if it were explicitly hard core on this point. As it is, those of a non-western and non-Christian culture as myself can benefit enough from the WTM to utilize its methods in our homeschools. However, we'd be deluding ourselves if we thought this was true classical education.

 

This is why Latin is emphasized and math/science not so much, because these subjects are not as central to the main goals of a "true" classical education. Of course, given that we live in the modern and not medieval world, STEM subjects simply must take a higher priority if part of one's educational goals is competing in the global economy and keeping up with the massive explosion of scientific understanding in our time.

:iagree:. If you have the time, what do you consider to be the classical elements you are extracting? or maybe better, what strikes you as "classical" about the education you're designing?

Edited March 23, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[justamouse]

Books like the Well Trained Mind sanitize the view of "classical education" and don't really portray it for what hard core classicists consider it to be: the transmission of the Western, Judeo-Christian culture.

 

WTM wouldn't have sold nearly as many copies if it were explicitly hard core on this point. As it is, those of a non-western and non-Christian culture as myself can benefit enough from the WTM to utilize its methods in our homeschools. However, we'd be deluding ourselves if we thought this was true classical education.

 

This is why Latin is emphasized and math/science not so much, because these subjects are not as central to the main goals of a "true" classical education. Of course, given that we live in the modern and not medieval world, STEM subjects simply must take a higher priority if part of one's educational goals is competing in the global economy and keeping up with the massive explosion of scientific understanding in our time.

 

I disagree with that so completely it's almost ridiculous. It's almost going back to the beginning of the conversation and starting over.

[8filltheheart]

This is a question of educational philosophy. To me, high school is NOT the time to specialize, but to offer a broad education that enables my student to pursue any major in college. If I have a STEM inclined student who will take very little humanities in college, this is the time to make sure his humanities education is solid. Same for a humanities inclined student: this is the time to teach him science because he will not have to take much science in college.

So, I am coming from exactly the opposite end: I do not absolutely have to cover all subjects that I know my student will study in depth in college, but I have to make sure to cover anything he will not encounter in his later education

 

In principle, I agree w/this. W/my ds when I say that his history will probably be "less," I do not necessarily mean it will be shallow. I am envisioning covering less scope, but covering what we do in depth. I think doing a shallow breadth will actually serve him less than covering what we do in depth. His literary list will probably take the same form. Vs. covering numerous works, we will probably cover fewer and spend more time delving into them. (I am confident that what he does cover will exceed a standard high school level course.;) )

 

Neither of us want to cut back on his actual stem coursework. First of all, he loves it and thinks it. Secondly, his reality is that if he is going to be able to attend the schools he wants, he has to get scholarship $$. I think being strong in the humanities is vital. No question. But, he also needs to stand out for who he is as an individual and that is where some of his coursework will pt to.....like being determined to pursue Latin all 4 yrs of high school b/c it is a passion for him. His 4 yrs of astronomy will also show that. They represent who he is.

[ElizaG]

It's almost going back to the beginning of the conversation and starting over.

:iagree:

To those who have claimed that the division of the classical curriculum into two parts, with the "arts of language" as the first stage, was a Christian invention: please cite some references. Actual references, from primary documents or scholarly sources.

 

Not feelings, or hunches, or personal interpretations of something you seem to remember reading somewhere. Please.

 

Otherwise, your posts might give the impression that you haven't researched this for yourselves, and are just working off preconceptions and hearsay. And I think you'd agree that this subject deserves more than that.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Eleanor

[poetic license]

:iagree:

To those who have claimed that the division of the classical curriculum into two parts, with the "arts of language" as the first stage, was a Christian invention: please cite some references. Actual references, from primary documents or scholarly sources.

 

Hmm. :001_huh: I never said this.

 

Forgetting the Christian part, if "classical education" is not the transmission of western culture, then what is it? Why Latin? Why Greek?

 

These discussions become circular because the terms are not clearly defined from the outset. I honestly don't have a bone to pick here because I don't consider myself a "classical homeschooler" per se. "Well Trained Mind" inspired homeschooler, perhaps.... so perhaps I don't even belong in this discussion. ;)

 

I'll just leave by answering this, since you asked--

 

:iagree:. If you have the time, what do you consider to be the classical elements you are extracting? or maybe better, what strikes you as "classical" about the education you're designing?

 

I use ideas from the "Well Trained Mind." A lot of people don't consider that as really "classical" so I'll use WTM rather than the term "classical" to define myself. What I extract is essentially the idea of designing the curriculum based on the three stages (grammar, logic, rhetoric), having a strong focus on history, and on an understanding of the language. I see WTM as having more of a focus on approach rather than content. I see true classical education as having an important focus on content (Western cultural centered) as well as approach.

 

So we plan to adapt the WTM approach and method for our own religious and cultural studies, focusing on the three stages and taking a heavy focus on history and study of skills (I say "plan to" because we are only at the start of our journey).

[serendipitous journey]

:iagree:

To those who have claimed that the division of the classical curriculum into two parts, with the "arts of language" as the first stage, was a Christian invention: please cite some references. Actual references, from primary documents or scholarly sources.

 

Not feelings, or hunches, or personal interpretations of something you seem to remember reading somewhere. Please.

 

Otherwise, your posts might give the impression that you haven't researched this for yourselves, and are just working off preconceptions and hearsay. And I think you'd agree that this subject deserves more than that.

 

I haven't said this either, though you may be thinking of a different poster.

 

It seems clear to me that logic/dialectic, grammar, and rhetoric as a set of tools, and arithmetic, geometry, music, and studies of the spheres/astronomy as a second set, dates to the ancient Greeks. The actual words "trivium" and "quadrivium" are naturally from the Latin and postdate the Greeks considerably, and the concepts attached to "trivium" and "quadrivium" and their components evolve over time. So that I would not be comfortable saying that all things that are true about the Trivium and Quadrivium proper are true of the ancient Greek conceptions, and vice versa.

 

Is there a difference of understanding here, esp. one that relates to how you conceive of science and math education within a classical framework?

 

1) College preparation. Depending on the student's interests and aptitudes, this could include an increased math and science course load after ~ age 16, so we'd want to make sure to get a solid foothold in the core humanities before then.

 

2) Practical knowledge necessary for every citizen, regardless of career plans. This doesn't include the formal study of pure math, etc. for its own sake (and as I understand it, it didn't in Plato's day, either -- that was for the very few who had already studied grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and were willing and able to continue their liberal education). But in our own time, it could certainly include an introduction to economics and statistics, as I've agreed elsewhere.

 

3) General scientific and mathematical literacy, presented in its historical and philosophical context.

 

4) Encouraging the development of habits and character traits that are conducive to success: honesty, diligence, humility, etc.

 

5) Never forgetting that all knowledge begins in wonder. Keeping in touch with the natural drive toward "poetic learning."

This is from your earlier post ... these are goals that make sense to me. Can you tell me if you derived them from the tradition of classical education? and if so, connect the dots? and if not, how would you say they fit into your classical education? I will not argue with you about this or critique it in any way! I am very grateful to have the opportunity to understand science and math goals as framed within classical education.

[serendipitous journey]

Books like the Well Trained Mind sanitize the view of "classical education" and don't really portray it for what hard core classicists consider it to be: the transmission of the Western, Judeo-Christian culture.

 

WTM wouldn't have sold nearly as many copies if it were explicitly hard core on this point. As it is, those of a non-western and non-Christian culture as myself can benefit enough from the WTM to utilize its methods in our homeschools. However, we'd be deluding ourselves if we thought this was true classical education.

 

This is why Latin is emphasized and math/science not so much, because these subjects are not as central to the main goals of a "true" classical education. Of course, given that we live in the modern and not medieval world, STEM subjects simply must take a higher priority if part of one's educational goals is competing in the global economy and keeping up with the massive explosion of scientific understanding in our time.

 

I disagree with that so completely it's almost ridiculous. It's almost going back to the beginning of the conversation and starting over.

 

Justamouse -- I understood Poetic License to be saying (though rather more bluntly than a Christian classical educator ever would :)) simply that hard-core classical education is rooted in Christian Western European culture, and so it follows that Latin (hardly a concern of the ancient Greeks) is emphasized and science/math (whose Greek sources were really not available to the early Christian West, and when reintroduced from the Muslim world almost immediately entered into tension with teachings of the Church which naturally made claims about natural philosophy based on Holy Scripture) is de-emphasized. This is my understanding. I myself have been firmly corrected (on these boards) for claiming an education rooted in ancient Greece can be reasonably described as "classical": the accepted definition of classical in our culture stems from this later tradition. As much as I dislike being corrected, it seems true that Classical Education is essentially rooted in Christian Classicism.

 

Could you share how does this fit into your sense of what classical means? or that may not be the right question ... do you have a different perspective on the role of science and math in classical education?

 

-- I can see where "sanitize" might be different than your take, though. I liked it, I confess...

[serendipitous journey]

Here's what I've gotten so far-- thank you, everyone!

 

1. Classical education is perfectly compatible with/encompasses broad science & math education.
   
2. It can be a challenge to give a child an excellent classical education, which includes extensive ancient language education, and also a math education that encompasses calculus. There's a sense that one can do intense STEM or intense classical but not both, especially with a not-small family, though a child could certainly leave high school with Latin & calculus too.
   
3. All of this seems to come to a bit of a head in high school, where content demands are intense and many children are preparing for college entrance as well as the financial aid to support a college education. Two ways of thinking of this are to make sure the child gets plenty of what she is NOT specializing in, to keep her well-rounded; and to make sure that she receives a strong education in her preferred areas esp. with a view to competitive college entrance and a Happy Child. However, everybody wants both a well-rounded child and one with the opportunity to go deeper in her favorite topics, so the difference is one of emphasis and not either/or.
   
4. 8FilltheHeart and Bluegoat made point that math is a mental skill/problem-solving subject, and that math and science fall into natural philosophy: the humanities. This brings them neatly into the classical fold. It seems super helpful from the POV of creating a coherent, unitary educational program. I wish I'd read more thoughtfully earlier and internalized this better :blush:.
   

am still :bigear: and interested in anything left out/misstated ...

[justamouse]

Justamouse -- I understood Poetic License to be saying (though rather more bluntly than a Christian classical educator ever would :)) simply that hard-core classical education is rooted in Christian Western European culture, and so it follows that Latin (hardly a concern of the ancient Greeks) is emphasized and science/math (whose Greek sources were really not available to the early Christian West, and when reintroduced from the Muslim world almost immediately entered into tension with teachings of the Church which naturally made claims about natural philosophy based on Holy Scripture) is de-emphasized. This is my understanding. I myself have been firmly corrected (on these boards) for claiming an education rooted in ancient Greece can be reasonably described as "classical": the accepted definition of classical in our culture stems from this later tradition. As much as I dislike being corrected, it seems true that Classical Education is essentially rooted in Christian Classicism.

 

Could you share how does this fit into your sense of what classical means? or that may not be the right question ... do you have a different perspective on the role of science and math in classical education?

 

-- I can see where "sanitize" might be different than your take, though. I liked it, I confess...

 

I'm from Jersey, I live in blunt. :001_smile: I used to think it was just me, then I watched vids of our Gov and realized it was a statewide thing. :D Some call it blunt, others honest.

 

I don't think SWB sanitized it, I think she knew her demographic and had to make it *accessible* to them. I has to be high enough to reach for, and easy enough for a non classically trained mother of children to implement. This is not a single generation goal. If you can, my hat's off to you. :001_smile:

 

It has become Christian, yes.

 

My point of strong disagreement was in this part of PL's comment

 

This is why Latin is emphasized and math/science not so much, because these subjects are not as central to the main goals of a "true" classical education. Of course, given that we live in the modern and not medieval world, STEM subjects simply must take a higher priority if part of one's educational goals is competing in the global economy and keeping up with the massive explosion of scientific understanding in our time.

That's where my bull snot meter goes off the charts. There are pages and pages of classically trained scientists-Christian ones at that, who have built the foundation of those STEM fields. They started their scientific education around the age of 16 in the quadrivium. <--Eleanor, correct me if I'm wrong (she knows more about the history -though I'm trying to catch up.)

 

What PL is espousing is further progressiveness of the schools to push for STEM fields--when that progressiveness has caused the lack of STEM educated people we have today!

 

Good science is good science, whether it's medieval or modern, and good science is made by the quality of the person, not in specialization. I agree that sciences are natural philosophy.

Edited March 25, 2012 by justamouse

[ElizaG]

I can't get back into this discussion right now, but wanted to mention something about this:

8FilltheHeart and Bluegoat made point that math is a mental skill/problem-solving subject, and that math and science fall into natural philosophy: the humanities. This brings them neatly into the classical fold. It seems super helpful from the POV of creating a coherent, unitary educational program.

It's my understanding that in the middle ages, natural philosophy came after the trivium, and (at least in some periods) after the quadrivium as well. I don't remember where the ancients or the post-Bacon folks put it, and don't have time to look it up. Maybe someone else can do so.

 

P.S. This is merely meant as a point of information for research or discussion, not a piece of advice on today's curriculum. Make of it what you will. :)

 

P.P.S. Mmm, bacon. :D

[ElizaG]

Re the medievals, I do feel compelled to bring up Albertus Magnus (St. Albert the Great) and his talking mechanical man, which St. Thomas Aquinas smashed to pieces because it was interrupting his concentration. I don't know if that's true, but it's a great story.

 

Re the ancients, the antikythera is astonishing and certainly real.

 

Nobody seems to know much about this part of history, and apart from the steampunk folks, few people seem to care. I guess it's always been the case that most technology is ephemeral.

[ElizaG]

This is from your earlier post ... these are goals that make sense to me. Can you tell me if you derived them from the tradition of classical education? and if so, connect the dots? and if not, how would you say they fit into your classical education?

I think what complicates this is that many of us are trying to provide our children with a classical education according to a fairly specific, traditional definition. But that's not all we're trying to do. And this is historically consistent. The formal, sit-down study of the liberal arts (trivium & quadrivium, or however they were structured in the early centuries) wasn't all that went into making a well-formed person in the classical conception. In both ancient and medieval times, children would experience the following as well:

 

 

• Primary education (the 3 R's), at home or in a school

• Music and sports training

• Religious education

• Practical skills and mentoring, in keeping with their family's way of life and parents' occupations

• "Everyday" contact with the riches of human culture and the natural world

 

I put "everyday" in quotation marks, because most of us today have to be more intentional about the last point. Many parents sense this (even if not consciously), and gravitate toward such things as nursery rhymes, inspiring stories, and informal nature study, especially in the early years. In the past, these weren't part of the classical curriculum in an overt way, but they were presumed as the context. Teaching the formal subjects of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric without this background is likely to produce narrow, disputatious minds -- the worst excesses of scholasticism. John Senior (mentioned often in the Circe thread) was deeply concerned with this, and wrote about it at length.

 

As homeschoolers, we are trying to do all of the above -- the traditional formal education, and a contemporary implementation of the things that used to be "daily life." I hope that explains things a bit better.

[Mommyfaithe]

My dc are too young to really give an educated answer...but I'll give an uneducated one anyway.

 

 

It's not a question of one or the other. In fact, part of the reason I HS is so that I don't *have* to choose one or the other. My dc will either be STEM kids who know their Latin or Language kids who know their Calculus.

 

 

...or the third option...I die trying!:tongue_smilie:

 

:D. I love this!!

[Ester Maria]

Books like the Well Trained Mind sanitize the view of "classical education" and don't really portray it for what hard core classicists consider it to be: the transmission of the Western, Judeo-Christian culture.

For me and in my neck of woods, classical education is synonymous with education in classics (= classical languages and letters). The only schools which bear the label "classical" on them are those that teach, well, classical languages and letters. More specifically, both of them, since Latin alone is not endemic to those schools (my husband had it through the graduation as well and his school did not bear the "classical" label).

 

 

Like I emphasized in the past, you can use the words however you wish because nobody has the "monopoly" on the label.

 

The tricky thing, however, is that insisting on the term "classical education" in a context that excludes an "education in classics" is going to make you misunderstood precisely in those circles in those countries which still have a more or less unbroken chain of tradition of it (even though that education has certainly transformed over time, there is still a certain, even institutional, continuity).

 

 

Anecdotally, when children from these schools are asked what languages they study, I rarely hear them specifically bringing up Latin and Greek. It goes without saying the moment you said you attended a classical school. To insist on it would be like insisting that you study math or history in the context of general education - of course you do. So, when people ask you about languages, they actually want to hear about those languages which are not a part of the "default setting" of such a school and which may vary from class to class, student to student - modern languages. Which is another reason why it sometimes makes me all :confused: reading about a completely different paradigm behind the label.

 

 

Now, I argue with some people about the "right" way to do that classical education thing. :D We argue about things such as whether the letters part is to be approached chronologically or genre-wise; whether this or that fleshing out of morphosyntax is a better way to go about it; etc. We, however, never argue about two things: (i) both Latin and Greek are taught; (ii) they are both taught at a high level (PAST formal grammar studies into literature). These two things are tacit axioms the moment we started talking about "classical education".

These boards are the only place where I have ever discussed "classical education" where that was disputed and the only place where, even more, the "antiquity" component of the classical education was disputed (as in, you can be "classical" without ever touching on Latin and Greek, or putting a specific focus on the civilizations and letters of classical antiquity, because what is classical is a method, not content? :001_huh:). For me, who grew up with the 'content definition', it was a totally new way of thinking (and to be perfectly honest, I prefer my 'old' way of thinking about it).

 

In a more broad context, classical education serves the exact function you mention: transmission of culture. That is all there is to it, really. Now, the Judeo-Christian part is a can of worms (I think that label per se is absurd, but that is another discussion), but it is most definitely a part of the game - with the principal emphasis being on the civilization and letters of classical antiquity.

 

And then in addition to such classical education, children, of course, receive a more mainstream type of education typical for their national tradition, age, and time. So of course that mathematical and scientific literacy, to different extents (relative to the child's aptitude, capacities, specific program of the school, time, etc.), is a part of the child's education. But its presence or absence or the kind of presence is not what is "classical" about it.

 

FWIW, I have one that is most likely STEM-bound and with whom I have compromised some things - namely, Greek - in the upper years, because there are only some many hours in a day and if something's gotta give or reduce to the minimum, it was going to be Greek before many other things. So, it is not that "classicism" of an education is necessarily a consideration that trumps all other considerations - but if we have a shared goal of the transmission of that particular heritage, those are some of the lines that each of us has to draw for ourseleves. I do not think a solid STEM education is in principle incompatible with "classicism" in education, but each of us has to choose her priorities in relation to our children and our realities. For me, Greek was atypically high on the list, but still lower than some other things.

[justamouse]

For me and in my neck of woods, classical education is synonymous with education in classics (= classical languages and letters). The only schools which bear the label "classical" on them are those that teach, well, classical languages and letters. More specifically, both of them, since Latin alone is not endemic to those schools (my husband had it through the graduation as well and his school did not bear the "classical" label).

 

 

Like I emphasized in the past, you can use the words however you wish because nobody has the "monopoly" on the label.

 

The tricky thing, however, is that insisting on the term "classical education" in a context that excludes an "education in classics" is going to make you misunderstood precisely in those circles in those countries which still have a more or less unbroken chain of tradition of it (even though that education has certainly transformed over time, there is still a certain, even institutional, continuity).

 

 

Anecdotally, when children from these schools are asked what languages they study, I rarely hear them specifically bringing up Latin and Greek. It goes without saying the moment you said you attended a classical school. To insist on it would be like insisting that you study math or history in the context of general education - of course you do. So, when people ask you about languages, they actually want to hear about those languages which are not a part of the "default setting" of such a school and which may vary from class to class, student to student - modern languages. Which is another reason why it sometimes makes me all :confused: reading about a completely different paradigm behind the label.

 

 

Now, I argue with some people about the "right" way to do that classical education thing. :D We argue about things such as whether the letters part is to be approached chronologically or genre-wise; whether this or that fleshing out of morphosyntax is a better way to go about it; etc. We, however, never argue about two things: (i) both Latin and Greek are taught; (ii) they are both taught at a high level (PAST formal grammar studies into literature). These two things are tacit axioms the moment we started talking about "classical education".

These boards are the only place where I have ever discussed "classical education" where that was disputed and the only place where, even more, the "antiquity" component of the classical education was disputed (as in, you can be "classical" without ever touching on Latin and Greek, or putting a specific focus on the civilizations and letters of classical antiquity, because what is classical is a method, not content? :001_huh:). For me, who grew up with the 'content definition', it was a totally new way of thinking (and to be perfectly honest, I prefer my 'old' way of thinking about it).

 

In a more broad context, classical education serves the exact function you mention: transmission of culture. That is all there is to it, really. Now, the Judeo-Christian part is a can of worms (I think that label per se is absurd, but that is another discussion), but it is most definitely a part of the game - with the principal emphasis being on the civilization and letters of classical antiquity.

 

And then in addition to such classical education, children, of course, receive a more mainstream type of education typical for their national tradition, age, and time. So of course that mathematical and scientific literacy, to different extents (relative to the child's aptitude, capacities, specific program of the school, time, etc.), is a part of the child's education. But its presence or absence or the kind of presence is not what is "classical" about it.

 

FWIW, I have one that is most likely STEM-bound and with whom I have compromised some things - namely, Greek - in the upper years, because there are only some many hours in a day and if something's gotta give or reduce to the minimum, it was going to be Greek before many other things. So, it is not that "classicism" of an education is necessarily a consideration that trumps all other considerations - but if we have a shared goal of the transmission of that particular heritage, those are some of the lines that each of us has to draw for ourseleves. I do not think a solid STEM education is in principle incompatible with "classicism" in education, but each of us has to choose her priorities in relation to our children and our realities. For me, Greek was atypically high on the list, but still lower than some other things.

 

Thank you.

 

:001_smile:

[Hedgehogs4]

For me and in my neck of woods, classical education is synonymous with education in classics (= classical languages and letters). The only schools which bear the label "classical" on them are those that teach, well, classical languages and letters. More specifically, both of them, since Latin alone is not endemic to those schools (my husband had it through the graduation as well and his school did not bear the "classical" label).

 

 

Like I emphasized in the past, you can use the words however you wish because nobody has the "monopoly" on the label.

 

The tricky thing, however, is that insisting on the term "classical education" in a context that excludes an "education in classics" is going to make you misunderstood precisely in those circles in those countries which still have a more or less unbroken chain of tradition of it (even though that education has certainly transformed over time, there is still a certain, even institutional, continuity).

 

 

Anecdotally, when children from these schools are asked what languages they study, I rarely hear them specifically bringing up Latin and Greek. It goes without saying the moment you said you attended a classical school. To insist on it would be like insisting that you study math or history in the context of general education - of course you do. So, when people ask you about languages, they actually want to hear about those languages which are not a part of the "default setting" of such a school and which may vary from class to class, student to student - modern languages. Which is another reason why it sometimes makes me all :confused: reading about a completely different paradigm behind the label.

 

 

Now, I argue with some people about the "right" way to do that classical education thing. :D We argue about things such as whether the letters part is to be approached chronologically or genre-wise; whether this or that fleshing out of morphosyntax is a better way to go about it; etc. We, however, never argue about two things: (i) both Latin and Greek are taught; (ii) they are both taught at a high level (PAST formal grammar studies into literature). These two things are tacit axioms the moment we started talking about "classical education".

These boards are the only place where I have ever discussed "classical education" where that was disputed and the only place where, even more, the "antiquity" component of the classical education was disputed (as in, you can be "classical" without ever touching on Latin and Greek, or putting a specific focus on the civilizations and letters of classical antiquity, because what is classical is a method, not content? :001_huh:). For me, who grew up with the 'content definition', it was a totally new way of thinking (and to be perfectly honest, I prefer my 'old' way of thinking about it).

 

In a more broad context, classical education serves the exact function you mention: transmission of culture. That is all there is to it, really. Now, the Judeo-Christian part is a can of worms (I think that label per se is absurd, but that is another discussion), but it is most definitely a part of the game - with the principal emphasis being on the civilization and letters of classical antiquity.

 

And then in addition to such classical education, children, of course, receive a more mainstream type of education typical for their national tradition, age, and time. So of course that mathematical and scientific literacy, to different extents (relative to the child's aptitude, capacities, specific program of the school, time, etc.), is a part of the child's education. But its presence or absence or the kind of presence is not what is "classical" about it.

 

FWIW, I have one that is most likely STEM-bound and with whom I have compromised some things - namely, Greek - in the upper years, because there are only some many hours in a day and if something's gotta give or reduce to the minimum, it was going to be Greek before many other things. So, it is not that "classicism" of an education is necessarily a consideration that trumps all other considerations - but if we have a shared goal of the transmission of that particular heritage, those are some of the lines that each of us has to draw for ourseleves. I do not think a solid STEM education is in principle incompatible with "classicism" in education, but each of us has to choose her priorities in relation to our children and our realities. For me, Greek was atypically high on the list, but still lower than some other things.

 

:iagree: This is why I am reluctant to label myself a "Classical" homeschooler. I think that a true classical education is truly more than what I may be equipped to give my children. I think it is a buzzword these days far more than a clear definition. In today's circles it means that your children have read a modern translation of Homer and you have started "amo, amas, amat" and studied Greek and Latin root words. You have read many of the books that are considered by educated people to be great because of their impact on society or the literary world. You have studied math and astronomy. You know who Michelangelo is. You read some original documents or at least very good, difficult transations of them. You know who Machiavelli is...I do not think this defines a classical education. A solid, traditional education perhaps, but not classical.

 

Believe me, I am going to do the best that I can do give my children a deep, rich education, and perhaps even a classical one (as the pp has defined) but if I don't, I will see to it that they have the heart, desire and ability to pursue it themselves beyond my house.

[Ester Maria]

In today's circles it means that your children have read a modern translation of Homer and you have started "amo, amas, amat" and studied Greek and Latin root words. You have read many of the books that are considered by educated people to be great because of their impact on society or the literary world. You have studied math and astronomy. You know who Michelangelo is. You read some original documents or at least very good, difficult transations of them. You know who Machiavelli is...I do not think this defines a classical education. A solid, traditional education perhaps, but not classical.

 

Believe me, I am going to do the best that I can do give my children a deep, rich education, and perhaps even a classical one (as the pp has defined) but if I don't, I will see to it that they have the heart, desire and ability to pursue it themselves beyond my house.

I use it as a "technical term", really. I know classically educated people whom I do not consider very smart or knowledgeable, but they do have that moment of classical culture due to the received instruction of classical languages and civilization. At the same time, I know extraordinary people who were not classically educated, whose education was not skewed to put a particular emphasis on the antiquity and its transformation - who, sure, encountered some of it in snippets, having read some ancient literature, having even studied some Latin, etc., but who do not own it in a sense of having actually acquired a certain proficiency - and who may not even have an interest in that particular niche of knowledge, nor share the ideological convinction that that niche of knowledge is a neccesary one to provide a solid cultural education, yet they are interesting, knowledgeable, accomplished people.

 

Do I consider their education ideal, if they are Westerners? No, becuase I have that particular cultural-ideological bias. So I personally will always see an essential fault in it. (Not that they should care.)

Do I deny that they are intelligent, interesting, knowledgeable, accomplished, happy people and professionals, living fulfilled lives, many of them in other ways what I would consider "cultured people"? Not for a moment.

 

A technical term, like I said. Not a value judgment, not a "mystical" anything, a little technical precision of the "bent" of their education with the inclusion of certain areas, which typically influenced some other areas covered too.