Circe people...remember that big thread?

[justamouse]

I wonder why it is that when people start talking theory, the literalists have to come in with an axe--as if we'd forget that the trees are there in the first place.

 

When in all actuality, we're probably the ones that see the trees the best.

[ElizaG]

I wonder why it is that when people start talking theory, the literalists have to come in with an axe--as if we'd forget that the trees are there in the first place.

 

When in all actuality, we're probably the ones that see the trees the best.

What's with all the "us" and "them?" :confused1:

 

Maybe I'm delusional, but I get the impression that on one level, everyone who's posted on this thread is interested in the same thing. And on another level, we're each one of us different. No "taking sides" needed.

 

(ETA: Although I admit to some curiosity as to how you'd categorize me -- given that I appreciate Janice's post, but also got in trouble in some of the CiRCE discussions for being too theoretical. ;))

[justamouse]

Hmm. I wouldn't be inclined to make assumptions about what any specific family is or isn't doing. This is the Internet. We haven't been in everyone else's houses; we haven't talked to their children; we haven't witnessed the real-world results. We have a natural tendency to "fill in the blanks" in people's posts with things that reflect our own ideas and behaviors. But I wouldn't be surprised if Janice's remarks did apply to some people on these boards.

 

Getting away from that aspect of her post... even though I've found a lot of inspiration from some of the CiRCE speakers, I tend to feel out of place in the discussions with fellow homeschoolers. This is partly because I do have somewhat of a "get 'er done" approach to the basics -- and for us, the basics include subjects beyond the 3 R's, like religion, Latin, and geography. Janice's mention of what we'd expect (at a minimum) from a private school is on point for me, and I do think about this when planning and looking at what we've done. I don't know if the way we do these subjects would be considered "box-checking" -- and frankly, I don't care :hat: -- but I think it might be helpful to have a discussion about what, exactly, is meant by that term. It seems to be used as a sort of coded in-group language, which is something I'm very uncomfortable with in general, as it tends to marginalize or exclude people who see things differently.

 

Another reason I'm not very active in those discussions is because we aren't using children's novels at all in our studies. There, I've said it. There's plenty of good literature on our shelves, and the children like to read (or listen to) and talk about it very often, but I believe that this would be happening even if we weren't homeschooling. To me, having a "book culture" at home is just part of being an educated person. And after thinking about this long and hard, I see no reason for us to add the Narnia series, Arthur Ransome, etc. to our curriculum, and several compelling reasons not to. YMMV.

 

I don't think this is an "un-CiRCE" approach. Their organization is just a gathering of people who are interested in Christian classical education, and they have diverse views about many subjects. Dr. Taylor, and his late mentor Dr. Senior, seem to suggest that enjoying classic story books should be part of a normal home life, and so teaching children's literature at school is remedial. To the extent that our own education is deficient, and our home environment is under the influence of modern media and technology, we're going to need to do this deliberately to some extent. This is a significant challenge for school teachers who have children from a variety of backgrounds. But for homeschooling families, I would hope that just providing the books and a supportive family atmosphere would be enough, at least in many cases. And I certainly don't see it as something we need to make into a cornerstone of the curriculum.

 

Again, I realize that others see this differently. Just wanted to give my two cents, storybook heretic that I am. ;)

 

 

Huh, for some reason, last I posted, this didn't show up on the thread, but obviously it was here...

 

I appreciate your views.

 

I see LOTS of families to who Janice's post would apply, but I'm not going to assume. That way leads to mandatory testing and state oversight.

 

I actually am *very* Git Er Done. But that, too, can be a ditch.

 

I know that firsthand, which was why the CiRCE thread was so timely for me. I was all Git er Done with no idea as to why. I, too, have also spent MANY hours on private school sites, looking at their curriculum, their choices, what they stress, the books they use. We also have a book culture. But until that thread, I was only checking boxes of what was in TWTM (sorry, no offense Susan!) and not thinking about the really excellent books I was missing. That thread shifted our book culture.

 

I don't teach them Latin, Math, Geography, Grammar...to get into college. That's not my end goal. Is it A goal? Of course. I assume all of mine will go to college, and so far they all are on track to and want to. Even the one who is at Vo Tech is going to college, recently deciding to major in Psychology. But a true liberal arts education isn't about getting into college, it's about forming a human being. I'm not teaching them this so they can get a good job, I'm teaching them so they can be good people, excellent parents, and teach their own children.

 

I didn't start this job to make sure my own kids excelled. I did it so that my grandchildren and great grandchildren would be well educated.

 

Frankly, I found Janice's post insulting, she assumed an awful lot.

 

I made some huge mistakes with DD18, the one off to college for psych. I checked a lot of boxes with her, I made sure they were done well. And of all my children, I feel she is the one I've done the most disservice to (even moreso than the one who was in jail, he at least knows he messed up. She? Has no idea what she's missed). She owns none of the big ideas. She doesn't even want to take them out to look at them. She could care less that they are even on the shelf.

 

That is the error of ditching yourself into the making sure the basics get done.

[ElizaG]

Frankly, I found Janice's post insulting, she assumed an awful lot.

I guess, as someone with a bunch of young children, I've come to expect a steady stream of seasoned homeschoolers coming along and wagging their fingers and telling me what to do. :D It seems to be their specialty. My assumption is that they mean well, and they often have some very good points. I might not be quite so docile about it if I were a seasoned homeschooler myself. ;)

 

(At this point, I'm just happy when they're not telling me to use Mother of Divine Grace. Not that I have anything against that curriculum, but it's constantly being urged on me by people at our Catholic homeschooling group, most of whom don't even use it themselves. When I start recommending MODG to the young'uns, you have permission to get out the gag and the straitjacket.)

[justamouse]

I guess, as someone with a bunch of young children, I've come to expect a steady stream of seasoned homeschoolers coming along and wagging their fingers and telling me what to do. :D It seems to be their specialty. My assumption is that they mean well, and they often have some very good points. I might not be quite so docile about it if I were a seasoned homeschooler myself. ;)

 

(At this point, I'm just happy when they're not telling me to use Mother of Divine Grace. Not that I have anything against that curriculum, but it's constantly being urged on me by people at our Catholic homeschooling group, most of whom don't even use it themselves. When I start recommending MODG to the young'uns, you have permission to get out the gag and the straitjacket.)

 

 

I still have a lot to learn --it took me until year ten to understand what Kern was even talking about.

 

UUGHHHH MODG. Yes, well. I already confuse those local moms who use it...it's a start. :laugh:

 

It is a huge sadness of mine that I have a daughter who loves psych, and yet who doesn't understand the Nature of Man and his purpose. You know? And it's not like she's headed to a classical school where she will be taught this, rather the opposite unless she goes to a Catholic college where she gets some Jung and context...I have to hope that at some point, she will want to understand--or know that it's even THERE to understand.

 

Beware the git er done, ditch. :leaving:

[kristinannie]

I always seem to get into these conversations late... I have to say that I have been doing a lot of contemplating when it comes to what I want out of my homeschool. I was such a product of public school and there are so many things that I felt like I had to do because of that. I have really let go of a lot of those things!!! The main focus of our homeschool is morning basket time. We do several things throughout the week, but include fairy tales, poetry, composer study, picture study, hymn study, memorization, Winnie the Pooh stories, US history reading (D'Aulaire's biographys and some Beautiful Feet selections), science (right now I am using Science for Little Folks by CHC and LOVE it), nature study, catechism, saint stories, etc. We do 3-4 books per day. We spend about 30-45 minutes on it.

 

We also have a couple of wonderful read alouds going on (right now we are reading Lightfoot the Deer by Thornton Burgess and Peter Pan without the cursing by Tinkerbell!!!!). I usually read these during meals.

 

We still do seatwork, but we do a lot less of it. Of course we have math (RS and Miquon and some Ray's), copywork, phonics, and reading lesson. This almost never takes more than an hour.

 

I give my kids a lot more time to play. I have found that they are really creative in their playtime. We are much more relaxed overall. I am definitely teaching from a state of rest most of the time. I have stopped worrying about so many pointless things and focusing on exposing my kids to the best there is and letting them take off from there. I have stopped doing NOEO science because it was just overwhelming to me even though I liked it. We spend the rest of the day unschooling. I cannot even tell you how much my kids have learned of their own volition! I am just there to help them if they need it and to encourage their adventures!

 

If you have too much public school in you, I suggest reading anything by John Taylor Gatto. I also high recommend 10 Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child. I am currently reading Poetic Knowledge. I cannot recommend this enough, especially for those with small children. It is not an easy read, but it is so worth it!

[justamouse]

(Caveat to my Mother of Divine Grace bristling, there, I know a few kids who got into excellent colleges on scholarships having used MODG, though it's not the path I would take.)

[justamouse]

I also high recommend 10 Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child. I am currently reading Poetic Knowledge. I cannot recommend this enough, especially for those with small children. It is not an easy read, but it is so worth it!

 

 

I *love* Ensolen. Total fangirl, as with Dr. Taylor.

[ElizaG]

It is a huge sadness of mine that I have a daughter who loves psych, and yet who doesn't understand the Nature of Man and his purpose. You know? And it's not like she's headed to a classical school where she will be taught this, rather the opposite unless she goes to a Catholic college where she gets some Jung and context...I have to hope that at some point, she will want to understand--or know that it's even THERE to understand.

Did you know that not so long ago, psychology was a branch of philosophy? St. Edith Stein was around during that era. IIRC, her early work was about empathy. Some of the CiRCE thread spin-offs inspired me to start learning about her educational philosophy, even though I don't think she was mentioned by name in any of the discussions. I find her writings very rich, but tough going.

 

Conrad Baars and Jean Vanier also integrate philosophy and psychology in beautiful ways, and their work is much more accessible. I wonder if your daughter might like something they've written. And take heart; college is just the beginning of her education. :)

 

In an old thread about science and classical education, I quoted some lines from Fr. Stanley Jaki, the late Benedictine physics professor and philosopher. He believed that science majors in college should be required to keep studying the humanities, not as a "breadth requirement" of taking courses in poetry and drama, but in terms of learning about the history and philosophy of their own discipline. This seems to me to be very wise advice, though it's rarely followed from what I can see.

 

In the same vein, I think it's invaluable for us, as administrators of our own tiny school systems ;), to keep learning about the history of education. I second the suggestion of John Taylor Gatto's writings as a possible starting point, but would also recommend taking the time to follow up on his references, as he tends to focus on those parts of history that support his own polemics. For instance, I'm currently reading Callahan's Education and the Cult of Efficiency. As Gatto says, it's a very powerful exposition of how public schools got the way they are. But it also reflects a broader preoccupation with efficiency and technique that's widespread in our culture. The message I'm getting is that, if we're worshiping at that altar in other areas of our lives, it's not likely we'll be able to get away from it with our children's education. John Senior knew this very well, which is perhaps why he tended to be more gloomy than Eeyore. But both Gatto and Senior have been taking on the time-honored role of cranky old men. I believe that we have reason for hope. :)

[Faithr]

I really enjoyed Poetic Knowledge but 10 Ways did not work for me at all. I find with Esolen that I agree with his conclusions and values but I just don't like his (to me) hyperbolic and emotional way of drawing those conclusions.

[ElizaG]

I have to admit, I've had Esolen's 10 Ways for a while, but stopped reading it early on and haven't picked it up since. Not sure why, but I tend to be dissatisfied with books that are compared to The Screwtape Letters. They never seem to be as biting and wickedly clever as the original. It seems very difficult for most authors to stay in character, if they ever got there in the first place.

 

Looking at it again, I think this was part of the problem. Passages such as the following:

 

"A vast enterprise like McDonald's can only function by ensuring that no employee, anywhere, will do anything sprightly and childlike in the way of cooking. I sometimes think that if a single boy at the grill tossed paprika into the french fries, the whole colossal pasteboard empire would come crashing down. Barbarians everywhere would be grilling the onions, or leaving the ketchup out, or commandeering the Swiss to take the place of the American."

 

come across more like Erma Bombeck than the forces of evil, if you ask me. ;)

[justamouse]

Did you know that not so long ago, psychology was a branch of philosophy? St. Edith Stein was around during that era. IIRC, her early work was about empathy. Some of the CiRCE thread spin-offs inspired me to start learning about her educational philosophy, even though I don't think she was mentioned by name in any of the discussions. I find her writings very rich, but tough going.

 

Conrad Baars and Jean Vanier also integrate philosophy and psychology in beautiful ways, and their work is much more accessible. I wonder if your daughter might like something they've written. And take heart; college is just the beginning of her education. :)

 

In an old thread about science and classical education, I quoted some lines from Fr. Stanley Jaki, the late Benedictine physics professor and philosopher. He believed that science majors in college should be required to keep studying the humanities, not as a "breadth requirement" of taking courses in poetry and drama, but in terms of learning about the history and philosophy of their own discipline. This seems to me to be very wise advice, though it's rarely followed from what I can see.

 

In the same vein, I think it's invaluable for us, as administrators of our own tiny school systems ;), to keep learning about the history of education. I second the suggestion of John Taylor Gatto's writings as a possible starting point, but would also recommend taking the time to follow up on his references, as he tends to focus on those parts of history that support his own polemics. For instance, I'm currently reading Callahan's Education and the Cult of Efficiency. As Gatto says, it's a very powerful exposition of how public schools got the way they are. But it also reflects a broader preoccupation with efficiency and technique that's widespread in our culture. The message I'm getting is that, if we're worshiping at that altar in other areas of our lives, it's not likely we'll be able to get away from it with our children's education. John Senior knew this very well, which is perhaps why he tended to be more gloomy than Eeyore. But both Gatto and Senior have been taking on the time-honored role of cranky old men. I believe that we have reason for hope. :)

 

 

*sniff* thank you. I needed that.

 

What I bolded? SO true. It really puts things in perspective as to where you are on the continuum.

 

Funny you should mention that about Callahan (you and one*mom always bust my book budget)...in Quiet, there's an excellent chapter on Harvard Business School, and how when the cult of personality started, the ivy leagues were the ones to fill the positions--and still do, despite the fact that introverts actually are better CEOs. HBS saw a niche market --it's not that different from schools seeing a market trend and pumping out student to meet those needs (efficiency being another market need).

 

I love Senior's work. I never read a lot of Gatto, though, though I have a few on my shelves. You placing the two in close proximity has piqued my interest.

 

 

 

I really enjoyed Poetic Knowledge but 10 Ways did not work for me at all. I find with Esolen that I agree with his conclusions and values but I just don't like his (to me) hyperbolic and emotional way of drawing those conclusions.

 

 

I love Ensolen's articles in Crisis Magazine, I've not read his book.

[OrdinaryTime]

I also want to add, quite humbly, that I believe that the "singing" of math is the Truth of math. It requires much work, many years of practice, to get to the singing. But that is the point of *my* understanding of much of the Circe thread. To just put in one's 120 hours and call it good is to miss entirely the Truth of *any* subject, be it math, language, writing or whatever. Thoughtful, deliberate understanding of the subjects I teach, why I am teaching them, and consideration of how best to honor the "singing" of the subject is what I took from the Circe thread. Don't play scales all day and think the scales are the point, don't drill math facts all day and think that they are the goal, don't do Latin vocab flash cards and think they are Latin. (Which is not to say don't do scales, drills or flash cards. Just don't think they are the end.)

 

 

This. 100% agree.

[OrdinaryTime]

You know, it may just be a difference of temperments in how we read something like the Circe thread. I absolutely need to have a very strong philosophical grasp of the end of actions I take, especially the big decisions that will involve a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. I'm actually pretty good at the daily grind....once I have truly bought into it intellectually, emotionally, spiritually. If I haven't, forget about it. I just will not put in the hard, demanding, daily-grind kind of work into something if I don't undertand and agree with where I am hoping it takes me. Reading the Circe thread helped crystalize my philosophical aquiecse to what I hoped for my kids' education...so it actually led to a more regular, dedicated formal school time for skills and a more intentionally rich home enviroment for content.

[justamouse]

I also want to add, quite humbly, that I believe that the "singing" of math is the Truth of math. It requires much work, many years of practice, to get to the singing. But that is the point of *my* understanding of much of the Circe thread. To just put in one's 120 hours and call it good is to miss entirely the Truth of *any* subject, be it math, language, writing or whatever. Thoughtful, deliberate understanding of the subjects I teach, why I am teaching them, and consideration of how best to honor the "singing" of the subject is what I took from the Circe thread. Don't play scales all day and think the scales are the point, don't drill math facts all day and think that they are the goal, don't do Latin vocab flash cards and think they are Latin. (Which is not to say don't do scales, drills or flash cards. Just don't think they are the end.)

This. 100% agree.

 

:iagree: I was totally thinking of printing that one out, myself. Not sarcasm/hyperbole, I was really thinking of it going on my fridge.

 

 

You know, it may just be a difference of temperments in how we read something like the Circe thread. I absolutely need to have a very strong philosophical grasp of the end of actions I take, especially the big decisions that will involve a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. I'm actually pretty good at the daily grind....once I have truly bought into it intellectually, emotionally, spiritually. If I haven't, forget about it. I just will not put in the hard, demanding, daily-grind kind of work into something if I don't undertand and agree with where I am hoping it takes me. Reading the Circe thread helped crystalize my philosophical aquiecse to what I hoped for my kids' education...so it actually led to a more regular, dedicated formal school time for skills and a more intentionally rich home enviroment for content.

 

 

I think perhaps you may be right. That's exactly how I am.

[texasmama]

You know, it may just be a difference of temperments in how we read something like the Circe thread. I absolutely need to have a very strong philosophical grasp of the end of actions I take, especially the big decisions that will involve a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. I'm actually pretty good at the daily grind....once I have truly bought into it intellectually, emotionally, spiritually. If I haven't, forget about it. I just will not put in the hard, demanding, daily-grind kind of work into something if I don't undertand and agree with where I am hoping it takes me. Reading the Circe thread helped crystalize my philosophical aquiecse to what I hoped for my kids' education...so it actually led to a more regular, dedicated formal school time for skills and a more intentionally rich home enviroment for content.

Yes, yes, yes!!! (going back into lurker mode...)

[justamouse]

I was reading a blog post today that was on Taylor's book Poetic Knowledge, and I'm going to paraphrase because I haven't asked for permission to quote...

 

Rest and leisure don't come by inactivity or laziness. Order and discipline create and maintain rest and leisure. Leisure is not a state of inactivity.

[Pod's mum]

I was reading a blog post today that was on Taylor's book Poetic Knowledge, and I'm going to paraphrase because I haven't asked for permission to quote...

 

Rest and leisure don't come by inactivity or laziness. Order and discipline create and maintain rest and leisure. Leisure is not a state of inactivity.

 

 

This was one of two books that this forum put on my bookdepository wishlist yesterday.

 

Looks like it might need to move into shopping cart in the near future and my obese house is going to gain a bit more.

[PRTGSw2K]

MLW, I think we might be twins. :) Your post is helping me understand why I feel compelled to start with ready-made curriculum, even though I always make major modifications to it -- sometimes until it's almost unrecognizable. I used to "excuse" this somewhat mysterious tendency by saying that it was because I'm disorganized, but that never seemed quite right. It makes more sense that it's related to my need to start with an understanding of the big picture. Having a curriculum that's all laid out gives me a sense of comprehension of the goals and content that I can't seem to get in any other way. When I try to start from scratch, even if I'm familiar with the subject matter, I feel like I'm plodding along day-to-day. When I start with something that's already written, I'm actually able to be much more flexible, integrate different topics in a more meaningful way, and include more spontaneous discussion and enrichment.

 

And this also explains why those homeschool scheduling programs and lesson plan books do nothing for me. It's not the organizational help I need, so much as having the material already written down for me to skim through, rearrange, enhance, delete, etc.

 

Thanks again for bringing up this interesting line of thought.

 

 

This is EXACTLY how I feel. We used a boxed curric last year, and having a general outline and guide enabled me to have a plan I could customize. No matter how many planners I try, they never work for me. This year, without the guide, I feel a bit lost. It's working OK. Lots more lit, much less history and science — we're enjoying this change tremendously. I do find that without that schedule, I'm just not as disciplined. I never follow anything exactly as written, but having an initial structure gives me the boost I need.

 

As for what changes we've made, I cut down on most busy work. We still have some, but only because he enjoys worksheets and asks for them. I'm trying to wean him. :p Lots more lit and less history, lit. He loves history, so we still spend more time on history than science, however, it is no longer our core.

 

The biggest change is trying to remember that my goal as their teacher is to have them stand before God and have Him say, "Well done." Not how many boxes I can check. Trying to teach from a place of rest. When my house is in order, I am less stressed and school goes more smoothly. So trying to simplify life so the good, true and beautiful can permeate our home.

[kristinannie]

You know, it may just be a difference of temperments in how we read something like the Circe thread. I absolutely need to have a very strong philosophical grasp of the end of actions I take, especially the big decisions that will involve a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. I'm actually pretty good at the daily grind....once I have truly bought into it intellectually, emotionally, spiritually. If I haven't, forget about it. I just will not put in the hard, demanding, daily-grind kind of work into something if I don't undertand and agree with where I am hoping it takes me. Reading the Circe thread helped crystalize my philosophical aquiecse to what I hoped for my kids' education...so it actually led to a more regular, dedicated formal school time for skills and a more intentionally rich home enviroment for content.

 

This is so true. Until I had a real vision for my homeschool (one that is still in progress), I really had trouble doing the hard work of homeschooling. It was hard to keep plugging away when I didn't have an understanding of where I wanted my kids to end up! In fact, a lot of my time lately has been spent in educating myself. I want to give my kids a wonderful education, but unfortunately I didn't get one! I have found that my excitement about learning myself has really spilled over into excitement about homeschooling my children.

 

I listened to a CiRCE lecture by James Daniels this week in which he discussed being authentic. We can't give what we don't have, but we can teach the kids in an honest way. We can learn along side them and be authentic with them. We can trust God to fill in whatever is lacking in our knowledge and wisdom. This realization took a lot of stress off of me and really encouraged me.

[Halcyon]

What an interesting thread I've started here. I have enjoyed everyone's take! I agree with the sentiment that I am actually very GOOD at getting things done in our homeschool. We are certainly where I wanted to be at this point (exactly midway through our school year) and in fact are ahead in most areas. What Circe has given me (and I am going to go back and listen to more of the lectures this week) is a philosophy of rest, peace and.....relaxed intention, I suppose, from which I can teach my children. In the beginning of my homeschool journey, I was very concerned with DOING EVERYTHING. Getting it all done. And I was pretty successful at it, but that's a quick road to burnout for all parties I soon learned. Reorienting my approach while still holding in mind my goals for each day, week and year towards one of gentle but rigorous chug-chugging along has really helped with my state of mine. I am able to trust in God a bit more when it comes to what we accomplish, trust in my children and their own state of mind a bit more. I don't have to hold the reins quite so tightly. I can breathe, read good books and laugh, and still complete our Latin and Pre-Algebra work.

 

Coming from a state of relaxed attentiveness....

[Bang!Zoom!]

Gatto:

 

Weapons of Mass Instruction is pretty good. ;)

[justamouse]

Gatto:

 

Weapons of Mass Instruction is pretty good. ;)

 

 

 

Oh well. I didn't plan on sleeping, anyway....

[Bang!Zoom!]

We should invite Andrew over to visit on this thread. His last newsletter was really touching, really.

 

Circe Thank You 2013

[Carol in Cal.]

My view, FWIW, is that nothing is worth reading the Circe thread. Too few kilts, clearly. That is all.

[justamouse]

My view, FWIW, is that nothing is worth reading the Circe thread. Too few kilts, clearly. That is all.

 

And cupcakes.

[Carol in Cal.]

And crockpots. We must not forget crockpots.

[ElizaG]

I agree with the sentiment that I am actually very GOOD at getting things done in our homeschool. We are certainly where I wanted to be at this point (exactly midway through our school year) and in fact are ahead in most areas.

I'm glad to hear that. But you can count me among those who are very MEDIOCRE at getting things done. :) After just the basic subjects and keeping five children alive, I don't have heaps of time and energy. When I use those limited resources on the "poetic" aspects of our academic studies, everyone is inspired, but other priorities -- exercise, music, religion, chores, bath time :p -- start to fall by the wayside.

 

So it's been tempting, recently, to imagine joining the ranks of the families who are meandering gently through the day, reading stories, baking cookies, doing a little schoolwork here and there, and murmuring that "this is just a season" and "we're educating for heaven, not Harvard." Maybe these families are imaginary, but I've read many posts on other homeschooling boards that come across this way, and some on the CiRCE discussions as well. And there seem to be a lot of people who describe themselves as inspired by some aspects of, say, Waldorf or Charlotte Mason, but disregard that these are structured methods in which everything is meant to work together. So it's not surprising to think that something like this might happen with classical education as well. It fits right in with what Anthony Esolen describes as the Jellyfish Theory of the Imagination (yes, I'm having another go at the book :) ).

 

At the same time, I know that I'd never choose to homeschool that way. Even if I agreed with it in principle, experience has shown that our home life would quickly turn into chaos. And anyway, I've already found the real solution for us, but it comes in such a still, small voice that I have a tendency to forget it. Our answer is to keep going with what I consider to be the basic "nuts and bolts" -- academic and otherwise -- and trust that we'll be given many opportunities to find beauty and meaning in our daily routine.

 

This isn't glamorous, and it requires me to give up a lot of things I'd rather be doing (which is why I keep slipping), but the children seem to thrive with it, and there have been some wonderful moments for me as well. More to the point, maybe, it's the only thing that works.

 

I guess it's true what all those saints and sages have said -- that to be "content with our lot" brings abundance. If only I weren't so easily distracted by bright shiny objects and ideas. And message boards. ;)

[Mrs Twain]

Perhaps this is an ignorant question...

 

Are the Circe people throwing out all of your historical fiction?

Are you reading no biographies?

 

We just finished listening to The Lord of the Nutcracker Men on audio CD in the car. I thought the literary quality of this historical fiction book was very good. In addition, I now understand World War I far better than I ever did before, even though this was only a children's book.

 

Might historical fiction books which teach us about true events and real people have something to do with truth?

 

Most of the books my kids read and books dh and I read to the kids are fiction. However, we also enjoy biographies and missionary stories. Might books about actual people who did real, noble, and remarkable things have some relation to beauty?

 

Does Circe say we ought to throw out all of the historical fiction and biographies in order to pursue truth and beauty in fiction books?

 

Just wondering. Not meaning to offend anyone. I am just curious to know what you think.

[prairiegirl]

\I don't believe the throwing out historical fiction came from Circe but rather from moms here on the board. One mom shared that she was not reading historical fiction to her children any more but focusing more on classical literature. Her words struck at other people's hearts (mine included\0 and they followed suit. Circe is a firm believer in doing what works for your family. If historical fiction provides you with truth, beauty and goodness, then go for it. \my kids do not really historical fiction so we don't read a lot of it but there are some that have a warm place in our schooling memories. It is not that we don't read historical fiction at all, we just don't read only that. The majority of our reading is classics. I just want to reiterate that Circe advocates doing what nurtures your children's soul and that will look different for each family, even for each child.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Perhaps this is an ignorant question...

 

Are the Circe people throwing out all of your historical fiction?

Are you reading no biographies?

 

We just finished listening to The Lord of the Nutcracker Men on audio CD in the car. I thought the literary quality of this historical fiction book was very good. In addition, I now understand World War I far better than I ever did before, even though this was only a children's book.

 

Might historical fiction books which teach us about true events and real people have something to do with truth?

 

Most of the books my kids read and books dh and I read to the kids are fiction. However, we also enjoy biographies and missionary stories. Might books about actual people who did real, noble, and remarkable things have some relation to beauty?

 

Does Circe say we ought to throw out all of the historical fiction and biographies in order to pursue truth and beauty in fiction books?

 

Just wondering. Not meaning to offend anyone. I am just curious to know what you think.

 

 

That was the part of the original thread that confused me. I couldn't relate to the people who were reading so little literature (crowding it out with historical fiction, I guess?) that the thread was that big of a revelation. We read lit at lunch and always have at bedtime...since forever. We read a lot of historical fiction for history and most of it is great. I wouldn't dream of doing history without it.

[OrdinaryTime]

Perhaps this is an ignorant question...

 

Are the Circe people throwing out all of your historical fiction?

Are you reading no biographies?

 

We just finished listening to The Lord of the Nutcracker Men on audio CD in the car. I thought the literary quality of this historical fiction book was very good. In addition, I now understand World War I far better than I ever did before, even though this was only a children's book.

 

Might historical fiction books which teach us about true events and real people have something to do with truth?

 

Most of the books my kids read and books dh and I read to the kids are fiction. However, we also enjoy biographies and missionary stories. Might books about actual people who did real, noble, and remarkable things have some relation to beauty?

 

Does Circe say we ought to throw out all of the historical fiction and biographies in order to pursue truth and beauty in fiction books?

 

Just wondering. Not meaning to offend anyone. I am just curious to know what you think.

 

 

Certainly not throwing out all historical fiction/biographies here. There is no Circe "curriculum" so the practical details of folks involved in the Circe thread or the Institute itself would vary wildly, I am certain. My kids are not old enough to have been reading that much of anything yet so the literature vs. historical fiction part of the thread wasn't as much interest to me. I don't think it becomes much of a issue if your child is a good, fast, happy reader. You can make it through quite a bit good literature and good biographies, often without even assigning them for "school". When you have more reluctant or just slower readers, decisions have to be made about how to prioritize their reading. It sounded like many families felt they had prioritized historical fiction/biographies to the exclusion of literary classics. I would agree a course correction is necessary in that case. Some biographies are are actually part of what I would consider quality literature (The Diary of Anne Frank and Augustine's Confessions both pop to mind immediately, though obviously for different audiences!), but many biographies and works of historical fiction, while often an enjoyable way to learn history, are not really high caliber literature. I think several participants in the thread just realized their reading assignments were a bit unbalanced.

[MyLittleWonders]

 

Certainly not throwing out all historical fiction/biographies here. There is no Circe "curriculum" so the practical details of folks involved in the Circe thread or the Institute itself would vary wildly, I am certain. My kids are not old enough to have been reading that much of anything yet so the literature vs. historical fiction part of the thread wasn't as much interest to me. I don't think it becomes much of a issue if your child is a good, fast, happy reader. You can make it through quite a bit good literature and good biographies, often without even assigning them for "school". When you have more reluctant or just slower readers, decisions have to be made about how to prioritize their reading. It sounded like many families felt they had prioritized historical fiction/biographies to the exclusion of literary classics. I would agree a course correction is necessary in that case. Some biographies are are actually part of what I would consider quality literature (The Diary of Anne Frank and Augustine's Confessions both pop to mind immediately, though obviously for different audiences!), but many biographies and works of historical fiction, while often an enjoyable way to learn history, are not really high caliber literature. I think several participants in the thread just realized their reading assignments were a bit unbalanced.

 

 

(Bolding mine) I realized I only have to much time in a day with four kids, one of whom needs some extra attention in terms of daily therapy, so I need to be picky with what I read to the kids. I also have somewhat reluctant readers who might only complete a fraction of books independently each year as those with more willing readers, so I need to be more picky about what I assign them. We enjoy historical fiction and biographies, and actually read a lot of stories of saints. But, if I have to choose, I pick classics/"good"/"great" books over historical fiction (saints stories are part of our religious ed). I'm not opposed to historical fiction at all, but I definitely need to prioritize and classics win.

[justamouse]

At the same time, I know that I'd never choose to homeschool that way. Even if I agreed with it in principle, experience has shown that our home life would quickly turn into chaos. And anyway, I've already found the real solution for us, but it comes in such a still, small voice that I have a tendency to forget it. Our answer is to keep going with what I consider to be the basic "nuts and bolts" -- academic and otherwise -- and trust that we'll be given many opportunities to find beauty and meaning in our daily routine.

 

This isn't glamorous, and it requires me to give up a lot of things I'd rather be doing (which is why I keep slipping), but the children seem to thrive with it, and there have been some wonderful moments for me as well. More to the point, maybe, it's the only thing that works.

 

I guess it's true what all those saints and sages have said -- that to be "content with our lot" brings abundance. If only I weren't so easily distracted by bright shiny objects and ideas. And message boards. ;)

 

 

*putsrecordon*

 

That is a season.

 

OMG, those years are hard. They are hard work, every day, all day and I felt like a hamster on a wheel because I am NOT a good mom, meaning, it is *really* hard for me to move my headspace. I've always had these big ideas and plans and wanted to do it all and if I could just get these kids to sit still so I could do what I wanted to do...

 

Selfish, much? :D I mean, I had them, what did I think that would entail?

 

I had to learn what you are going through. That's why I often say to moms of youngers who are homeschooling; homeschooling is your JOB. That is it. It's a hard lesson and it hurts. It's really death to self. Teaching kids those things like adding and subtracting and reading is just the work of putting pebbles in the jar and watching the water rise and there seems to be no payoff...

 

Nuts and bolts is what is needed in those years because that's all you CAN do and you have this house full of little ducks. The poetry comes in the doing of it. God is there among the pots and pans.

 

ETA: You are now creating the habit of order that will enable wonder to come. It is a huge task and the older I get, I realize it's the most important. And it's not fun, it's drudgery.

 

Perhaps this is an ignorant question...

 

Are the Circe people throwing out all of your historical fiction?

Are you reading no biographies?

 

We just finished listening to The Lord of the Nutcracker Men on audio CD in the car. I thought the literary quality of this historical fiction book was very good. In addition, I now understand World War I far better than I ever did before, even though this was only a children's book.

 

Might historical fiction books which teach us about true events and real people have something to do with truth?

 

Most of the books my kids read and books dh and I read to the kids are fiction. However, we also enjoy biographies and missionary stories. Might books about actual people who did real, noble, and remarkable things have some relation to beauty?

 

Does Circe say we ought to throw out all of the historical fiction and biographies in order to pursue truth and beauty in fiction books?

 

Just wondering. Not meaning to offend anyone. I am just curious to know what you think.

 

 

 

CiRCE has no curriculum.

 

I totally dropped historical fiction. Yes, some is great. It's well written, it's a great story, I just have no time for it. I wasted so many years of good reading with it. If they want to read it on their own time? Awesome. But I'm finding that they'd just rather not. (some of the books cross paths, like King Arthur, Robin Hood, Ivanhoe)

 

Why don't I have time to read it? I should have been going through the Good Books to get ready for the Great Books. They only have so many hours in their day and I had them reading Caddie Woodlawn and Johnny Tremain when they should have been reading Treasure Island, and Swiss Family Robinson.

 

So I had to backtrack.

 

I started reading them Grimm over the summer. The real ones, not retellings. Then we moved onto Hans Christian Anderson, Water Babies, The Jungle Book (by flashlight during Hurricane Sandy) Pinocchio...

 

Here's some lists. I don't bind myself to them, my kids will never like Henty. Ever.

 

Of course we do history, we love it. It's a favorite subject. I use something like Our Island Story, and then move into Churchill's History of the English Speaking People and such. We watch videos. I don't do history crafts, we save arts and crafts for nature journals and art.

 

I let them have free reign when it comes to nighttime free reads. For our 'religious' studies, we always are reading stories about the saints (biographies) and they love them.

 

So, like MLW said, it's just priorities--we just don't have time for all of the historical fiction when there's good and great books to read.

 

I'll have to pull off the Peter Kreeft book that was the catalyst for me in that decision and find the quote, but right now I have to go make dinner. :D

 

Found it (glad I marked that sucker up)

 

The Philosophy of Tolkein, by Peter Kreeft, pg 22-23

 

 

Philosophy makes literature clear, literature makes philosophy real. Philosophy shows essences, literature shows existence. Philosophy shows meaning, literature shows life.

 

[snip]

 

All literature incarnates some philosophy. Thus all literature teaches. In allegory, the philosophy is taught by the conscious and calculating part of the mind, while in great literature it is done by the unconscious and contemplative part of the mind, which is deeper and wiser and has more power to persuade and move the reader. Allegory only engages the mind, while great literature engages the whole person; for allegory comes from only the mind, while great literature comes from the whole person.

 

Literature not only incarnates philosophy; it also tests it by verifying it or falsifying it. One way literature tests philosophy is by putting different philosophies into the laboratory of life, incarnating them in different characters and then seeing what happens. Life does exactly the same thing. Literature also tests philosophy in a more fundamental way. It can be expressed by this rule: a philosophy that cannot be translated into a good story cannot be good philosophy.

 

 

 

 

So. What was I going to make them spend their time on?

[Joyofsixreboot]

I think that whole, long thread helped me distill what we want our homeschool education to focus on. It doesn't look like the Circe model but that's OK. I streamlined to give us more time for enjoying books and art and music and the outdoors. For us this involved switching to " do the next thing" sorts of curriculum that leave time for rabbit trails rather than trying to include the rabbit trails and interesting tidbits in the plan.

[OrdinaryTime]

Thanks for sharing the Kreeft quote, mouse. Love it.

[Bang!Zoom!]

http://www.societyforclassicallearning.org/index.php/resources/media/15-2011-conference-recordings

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Wow, nice embedding skills, one*mom.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Hey, worked for Hansel and Gretel, right? lol

[ElizaG]

Teaching kids those things like adding and subtracting and reading is just the work of putting pebbles in the jar and watching the water rise and there seems to be no payoff...

 

Nuts and bolts is what is needed in those years because that's all you CAN do and you have this house full of little ducks. (...)

 

ETA: You are now creating the habit of order that will enable wonder to come.

 

Well, the basics for us are kind of different from what you've described here. My older two have been strong readers for years, are able to work at or near a middle school level in most subjects, and can discuss things and make connections in surprisingly deep ways. They're pretty much dream students in that respect. But age-wise, they're both still in the Parent at Elbow stage, as Susan puts it. And this goes for chores and school assignments alike. So I can't seem to take the time to go deeper with either of them without everything else falling to bits around me. It's one of those "so near, but yet so far" situations that seems expressly made to test my willpower. I hope, with time, I won't keep flunking so badly.

 

I agree about the "habit of order." That advice is right on target. I will try to get it into my thick skull. :)

 

I totally dropped historical fiction. (...) Why don't I have time to read it? I should have been going through the Good Books to get ready for the Great Books. (...)

 

So, like MLW said, it's just priorities--we just don't have time for all of the historical fiction when there's good and great books to read.

 

From what you've said above, your plan right now is influenced by the sense that your children have missed out on some important literature in earlier childhood. So it would seem to come under what Dr. Taylor calls remediation. Which is great, but it doesn't apply to those who are starting out with little ones, or whose children have been reading or listening to these sorts of works all along. I think this is what Alte Veste was getting at. While your situation is very common, it isn't normative (hey, I sound like Andrew Kern there, LOL).

 

 

For those who don't have access to John Senior's original "Good Books" lists (in the back of The Death of Christian Culture), his recommendations for ages 7-12 have more in the way of popular adult literature than children's classics. This list is especially heavily weighted toward adventure stories about young men, because he chose the titles from the books he read as a boy. The authors include Andy Adams, Thomas Bailey Aldrich, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Gene Stratton-Porter, James Fenimore Cooper, Richard Henry Dana, Hamlin Garland, Will James, and Fredrick Marryat. Many of these could be considered historical fiction.

 

His recommendations for this age group also include classics that aren't written specifically for children -- some Dickens, Defoe, Hawthorne, Washington Irving, Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors. Again, this would be for elementary ages (who would already have heard the fairy tales, etc., that are on the "nursery" list). The list for ages 12-16 gets into Charlotte Bronte, Victor Hugo, Walter Scott, Wilkie Collins, more Dickens, more Shakespeare, Conan Doyle, Dumas, and George Eliot, as well as more popular fiction by Zane Grey and Rider Haggard.

 

I don't say this for your information, Mouse; I'm sure you're familiar with it. And it's not meant to be a sales pitch for Dr. Senior's ideas, either. While I appreciate what he's done, I'm not convinced that, say, Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, or James Fenimore Cooper's The Wept of Wish-Ton-Wish, are "by a common consent part of the ordinary cultural matter essential for an English-speaking person to grow in." :D

 

Just wanted to describe the lists a bit, for anyone who hasn't seen them. I think it would be easy for people to get some wrong impressions if they were going by online information. Or even the Angelicum Good Books curriculum, which is based on his ideas, but has reworked them quite a bit to make them fit a year-by-year K-12 curriculum -- which wasn't part of the original intent.

[Bang!Zoom!]

If you ended up incorporating some circe stuff into your himeschool, can you tell me what "stuck" and seemed most helpful?

 

Back to the original question, something else I'm thinking about is what happened to my bookshelf in the beginning. The titles got thinner as I focused on looking at them as an entire collection speaking a clearer message.

 

It was one of the things that first pushed me over into getting a kindle.

 

I think I did around ten different clear outs and donations.

 

I think today I need to redo the shelves as that focus is getting weak-either just out of disorder or the need for me to go back in and ask that question again of every book I have.

 

"Does this book provide itself to the conversation (you know, *that* conversation) and how?"

 

I'm re-listening to one of the talks, and that question is in it, and I remember what an impact it had on me once I felt it was an honest and good question to ask myself.

[Faithr]

I agree about the booklists being really biased. Tarzan books are not good literature in my opinion. Talk about purple prose. It's laughable! And they are blatantly racist! That isn't teaching virtue in my humble opinion.

 

And I think to completely discount well written historical fiction is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I mean Henty's books are all historical fiction anyway? So why do they rate but not Johnny Tremain, for example?

 

Speaking of Johnny Tremain my kids LOVED that book, even the one who says he's hates history. We read that and Carry On, Mr. Bowditch before we went up to spend a week in Boston one summer. We went on a special Johnny Tremain tour given by a local history professor. It was fascinating. Then we took a ferry over to Salem and everyone was channeling Nathaniel Bowditch. We had a blast that week and my kids wax nostalgically about how it was one of the best vacations ever. So thank you, Esther Forbes and Jean Lee Latham!

 

I think the problem with historical fiction is when you let mediocre works push out great literary works because you are so very focused on having to do history in a lock step chronological way and you see reading as just part of the history curriculum. Good literature should be valued in and of itself BUT it does also really enhance other subjects as well when the story coincides with what you are studying.

[justamouse]

I don't say this for your information, Mouse; I'm sure you're familiar with it. And it's not meant to be a sales pitch for Dr. Senior's ideas, either. While I appreciate what he's done, I'm not convinced that, say, Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, or James Fenimore Cooper's The Wept of Wish-Ton-Wish, are "by a common consent part of the ordinary cultural matter essential for an English-speaking person to grow in." :D

 

Just wanted to describe the lists a bit, for anyone who hasn't seen them. I think it would be easy for people to get some wrong impressions if they were going by online information. Or even the Angelicum Good Books curriculum, which is based on his ideas, but has reworked them quite a bit to make them fit a year-by-year K-12 curriculum -- which wasn't part of the original intent.

 

 

Ohh truly, I know, we won't be reading some of them. I am so not going to have them read the whole of the Tarzan series. Though I would love to ask WHY the whole series is in there--what am I missing? What is their reasoning?

 

And I am remediating. But the reason I'm remediating can still continue on, you know?

 

 

(I also have 4 at parent at the elbow, I so get it)

 

You know, I've never read The Death of Christian Culture, only the Restoration. Now to remedy that...

 

I think the problem with historical fiction is when you let mediocre works push out great literary works because you are so very focused on having to do history in a lock step chronological way and you see reading as just part of the history curriculum. Good literature should be valued in and of itself BUT it does also really enhance other subjects as well when the story coincides with what you are studying.

 

 

Exactly.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Perhaps this is an ignorant question...

 

Are the Circe people throwing out all of your historical fiction?

Are you reading no biographies?

 

We just finished listening to The Lord of the Nutcracker Men on audio CD in the car. I thought the literary quality of this historical fiction book was very good. In addition, I now understand World War I far better than I ever did before, even though this was only a children's book.

 

Might historical fiction books which teach us about true events and real people have something to do with truth?

 

Most of the books my kids read and books dh and I read to the kids are fiction. However, we also enjoy biographies and missionary stories. Might books about actual people who did real, noble, and remarkable things have some relation to beauty?

 

Does Circe say we ought to throw out all of the historical fiction and biographies in order to pursue truth and beauty in fiction books?

 

Just wondering. Not meaning to offend anyone. I am just curious to know what you think.

 

 

 

First off, I definitely don't consider myself a "Circe person" - being a liberal atheist from No Cal and all. I'm one of the people Andrew Kern rants about. However, I did gain some inspiration from some of the comments on that thread.

 

And, while I did become inspired to not be *tied* to historical fiction - to be sure to explore the other quality children's literature out there! we definitely haven't thrown it all out. Historical fiction and biography deepen and enrich our history studies. It's just not *all* we read.

 

How it looks in a practical way for us is that dd's assigned independent reading book list is full of good historical fiction and biographies that are connected to our history studies - she reads them, we talk about them, not just the content, but about the different "jobs" of the novelist, biographer, and history writer, their points of view, reliability of sources, etc. This is an important part of our day.

 

But for literature studies, we are not tied to the historical cycle - I pick books dd is interested in reading/hearing, or that I think are important, that are just above her independent reading/comprehension level, and we read and discuss them together. So earlier in the year we read 20,000 Leagues under the sea - because dd wanted to - and a bunch of Sherlock Holmes novels and stories. Even though we aren't at that historical period yet!! It was wonderful.

 

This is just me . . . but no!! I haven't thrown anything out. If anything, I've included more depth and richness, by not feeling compelled to follow the historical cycle for *all* of our reading choices.

[ElizaG]

Ohh truly, I know, we won't be reading some of them. I am so not going to have them read the whole of the Tarzan series. Though I would love to ask WHY the whole series is in there--what am I missing? What is their reasoning?

Senior's reasoning was the line I quoted above. Weird, I know.

 

Angelicum's reasoning was that they went through the list and picked out those books that were still in print and readily available -- maybe 1/4 or less of the total number? This made the selections even more lopsided, I think. But since they did that, quite a few of the others have become available for Kindle (often free), which changes things a bit.

 

You know, I've never read The Death of Christian Culture, only the Restoration. Now to remedy that...

I've said this elsewhere, but despite the titles, I feel as if Death is the more uplifting of the two books, and has more practical things to say about education. :)

[ElizaG]

I agree about the booklists being really biased. Tarzan books are not good literature in my opinion. Talk about purple prose. It's laughable! And they are blatantly racist! That isn't teaching virtue in my humble opinion.

 

And I think to completely discount well written historical fiction is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I mean Henty's books are all historical fiction anyway? So why do they rate but not Johnny Tremain, for example?

I agree with your post, but to be fair to John Senior, I don't think he ever said that the Tarzan books were laden with virtue. :D He believed that children should read them because their imagery was part of our Western cultural heritage, and because their complex language would help prepare the student to to read much greater books later on. I agree with this, to an extent. I'm just not convinced it's essential for every child to read half a dozen of them.

 

He also never said anything against historical fiction.

 

I think part of the confusion is that people keep coming back to the idea that there's one "CiRCE point of view," when they're just meant to be a gathering spot for those who are interested in Christian classical education. Although the speakers generally stay away from debating one another in public, they clearly have some very different ideas and priorities. (Well, Dr. Senior isn't a speaker at all, being deceased... but his emphasis on the "Good Books" and "poetic learning" are well represented by Dr. Taylor's talks.)

[momto2Cs]

I think the problem with historical fiction is when you let mediocre works push out great literary works because you are so very focused on having to do history in a lock step chronological way and you see reading as just part of the history curriculum. Good literature should be valued in and of itself BUT it does also really enhance other subjects as well when the story coincides with what you are studying.

 

Exactly. We didn't "throw out" all historical literature either, but we read less of it. For example, since we're studying ancients, there are dozens of books on ancient Egypt. Literally dozens that I could read to the kids. However, I am instead choosing to read 1, maybe 2 or 3, really good books related to ancient Egypt, and then I have more time available to read other good books aloud, such as Treasure Island, The Five Children and It, The Hobbit, or The Invention of Hugo Cabret (which I would say qualifies as a very good book). I simply no longer tie the majority of our read alouds to history.

 

First off, I definitely don't consider myself a "Circe person" - being a liberal atheist from No Cal and all. I'm one of the people Andrew Kern rants about. However, I did gain some inspiration from some of the comments on that thread. And, while I did become inspired to not be *tied* to historical fiction - to be sure to explore the other quality children's literature out there! we definitely haven't thrown it all out. Historical fiction and biography deepen and enrich our history studies. It's just not *all* we read. How it looks in a practical way for us is that dd's assigned independent reading book list is full of good historical fiction and biographies that are connected to our history studies - she reads them, we talk about them, not just the content, but about the different "jobs" of the novelist, biographer, and history writer, their points of view, reliability of sources, etc. This is an important part of our day. But for literature studies, we are not tied to the historical cycle - I pick books dd is interested in reading/hearing, or that I think are important, that are just above her independent reading/comprehension level, and we read and discuss them together. So earlier in the year we read 20,000 Leagues under the sea - because dd wanted to - and a bunch of Sherlock Holmes novels and stories. Even though we aren't at that historical period yet!! It was wonderful. This is just me . . . but no!! I haven't thrown anything out. If anything, I've included more depth and richness, by not feeling compelled to follow the historical cycle for *all* of our reading choices.

 

Well said (from another liberal No Cal girl, though more agnostic than atheist). I bolded what really stood out to me, but the whole response is good.

[Mommyfaithe]

I am in the " don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" camp. What I DID take away from the Circe thread and the lectures, is to trust myself, and my instinct when I form our curricula for my own kids....keeping our family vision and God's plan for my individual children in mind....and not falling to whims, or peer pressure or fads in the homeschooling community. Our search for truth and beauty can and does happen in the small moments, while doing dishes, planting the garden, weeding, folding laundry, doing a math lesson, riding in the car etc. it is about being ALIVE and raising our kids to live life to its fullest.

 

I try not to wax philosophical if I do not have the nuts and bolts to build the vision set before me, or at least an idea of what those nuts and bolts are. For us plugging away daily at math, reading, writing and other language arts are foundational to having deep, truthful, beautiful thoughts and ideals. On those foundations, we must structure the beauty of the arts, music, poetry, literature, sciences etc. It is not an either/or.

 

Faithe

[justamouse]

Senior's reasoning was the line I quoted above. Weird, I know.

 

Angelicum's reasoning was that they went through the list and picked out those books that were still in print and readily available -- maybe 1/4 or less of the total number? This made the selections even more lopsided, I think. But since they did that, quite a few of the others have become available for Kindle (often free), which changes things a bit.

 

 

I've said this elsewhere, but despite the titles, I feel as if Death is the more uplifting of the two books, and has more practical things to say about education. :)

 

It's on it's way. :D I thought that I should read it before I read Dr Taylor's Poetic Knowledge. And hopefully I'll balance out some of that booklist from Angelicum.

[Pod's mum]

We have trouble sticking to the nuts and bolts too, just because it involves consistancy, which is not something either of us specialise in. Like ElizaGrace said (#91), my dd has ideas, reading and comprehension well into the 'fun' Rehtoric level, yet we are plodding in the difficult for her Grammar level.

Lately I'm repeating that these are the writting skills she needs to have so she can share those ideas with others, and she needs to master basic age appropriate maths skills so she can get into the fantastic super maths that she loves reading about. We are both 2E, so the Grammar level really is hard work. But I also believe that learning the discipline of working hard at difficult things is a major part of this path we are both on.

 

On another note I purchased Circe's Lost Tools of Writing several years ago for elder dd, and for various life-season reasons, it didn't get used. Now it's one of my Lost (Curriculums) Tools from an earlier computer.

 

This remains the type of thread that keeps me focused on the why, rather than all the shiny hows that this board can wander towards.

(Which is why I put the Nike reference in my siggy. The only resources that count are the ones that get used.)

 

Oh, and while I'm here, another vote for Johnny Tremain. I think this is an example of the good literature/historical literature overlap we revel in.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Pod's mum