best -- well, good or at least useful -- pre-Sayers Classical Education outline

[serendipitous journey]

I'm trying to find an outline of homeschooling with a view to pre-Sayers Classical Ed. It could be post-Sayers, of course, in time; but something that's not based in the chronological Trivium but in the Trivium as skills/subjects/studies. LCC comes to mind; anything else?

[Tress]

:bigear:

[Faithr]

The program I work with, Aquinas Learning is based in a model different from Sayers. The Circe Institute is all about this model. I am sorry I can't link right now but if you google Circe institute you can investigate them. One book that opened my eyes was Poetic Knowledge by Dr. James Taylor.

 

HTH

[Tress]

I'm not sure a Circe-type education would be a pre-Sayers classical education. At the very least it would be a very American classical education. I highly doubt it would be seen as classical education in most of Europe.

 

Ana, did you see this thread:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345031-free-book-with-course-of-study-for-a-19th-century-classical-education/page__hl__+lyon#entry3610992

 

This book was written for schools, so not immediately applicable for homeschool parents, but still very interesting.

At least, I think so :D.

[OrdinaryTime]

I have not read this book and it is overtly Christian, but authors make a case against Sayers' interpretation of the Trivium:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Eloquence-Christian-Paradigm-Classical/dp/1581345526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244817947&sr=8-1

 

I do recommend James Taylor's Poetic Knowledge, that Faith mentioned.

[elegantlion]

You could go back and read Quintilian, obviously pre-Sayers. I found this book at a library sale. It's not an easy read, but fascinating. I made it through part of the book before I to shelve it for later reading. Obviously it doesn't specifically discuss homeschooling.

 

Another option, also not an outline but a philosophy, would be Climbing Parnassus. Reviews are mixed, some hate it. Some feel the author is overly verbose. I felt smarter just by finishing it. ;)

 

LCC would be the most relevant one that I know of. If you don't have LCC (1st edition) I think it expresses a better sense of classical education. The 2nd edition is great too (better for a more traditional modern progression). 1st edition LCC can be hard to find in print. Memoria Press sells it as a e-book here.

[ElizaG]

If you want something that's representative of what previous generations would have considered "classical education" (either US or European), I don't think you'll find it in any of the existing homeschooling guides. Believe me, I've looked. For ten years now. (Yes, starting before I even had any children. I'm a far-gone case. Please send chocolate. :D )

 

What you'll get, it seems to me, are:

 

1) Authors who have a solid background in 20th century systems of education that they believe actually worked, to some extent, and are hoping to restore these to general use, and also reform them (in limited ways) to be more "classical," as they understand the term. I'd put TWTM and Poetic Knowledge in this category. The emphasis is on scraping off accretions from our existing traditions, building up weak spots, and developing our own abilities as teachers and as learners ourselves.

 

2) Authors who have various theories about classical education (derived from books), and have used those to come up with a comprehensive method from scratch. I'd put the original Great Books Movement, LCC, and some of the more novel Sayers-ish curricula (e.g. Classical Conversations) in this category. Their emphasis is on creating something new and simple to use.

 

The second group might seem "more classical" on the exterior, and they're certainly more appealing to the do-it-yourself American way of thinking. But the more I've read about the history of classical education, the more I've become uncomfortably aware that the methods these people are promoting have only the sketchiest resemblance to the way students were taught at any time in history, from the ancients through the Renaissance, through to the 19th century US, or (as Tress pointed out) in Europe today. To put it bluntly, their curricula are completely experimental and untested in the long term. This is the opposite of classical education!

 

So I've come around to being convinced that our only real option is to go with the first approach, and deal with the baggage (a mix of legitimate traditions and rubbish) that's been passed on to us. Which isn't to say that I necessarily agree with any of these authors on all the specifics. But I do agree with them that we can't just toss it all and start over. Well, we can, but the results won't be "classical." Except perhaps in the sense of providing an object lesson in hubris, hamartia, and other such concepts. ;)

[ElizaG]

It might also be helpful to read some of the treatises of the humanistic educators who were involved in the revival of classical learning in the Renaissance. Their plans are interesting in themselves, but I find even more of value in their general comments, which give us insight into the ideals behind their decisions. These four are among the most frequently read and reprinted. (Some are excerpts; the full versions might be online elsewhere, if someone wants to hunt them down.)

 

Pier Paolo Vergerio, "The Character and Studies Befitting a Free-Born Youth"

Leonardo Bruni, "The Study of Literature"

Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), "The Education of Boys"

Battista Guarino, "A Program of Teaching and Learning"

[Faithr]

I wonder if Cardinal Newman's The Idea of A University would fit the pre-Sayers model of classical education?

[birchbark]

This book is short and readable and has given me a perspective on "Classical Ed" and the trivium that is non-Sayers. It is co-written by Andrew Kern, founder of CIRCE.

 

ETA: The first two chapters cover the "What is a Classical Education?" question. The rest of the book is more or less a survey of Classical Ed in various schools and movements.

[VeritasMama]

I also enjoyed Climbing Parnassus, not sure if it qualifies as an "outline of homeschooling." But it did give me a deeper insight into classical education.

[wapiti]

I don't have any particular outline or guide in mind, but I might look in the direction of books on Jesuit education (there are many on Amazon and possibly some very old ones available free at google books). For whatever reason, this one has been sitting in my amazon cart.

 

Here is one old thread re: elements of a classical education. ETA, oops, I just realized that OP posted in that thread :)

[ladydusk]

I have not read this book and it is overtly Christian, but authors make a case against Sayers' interpretation of the Trivium:

 

http://www.amazon.co...44817947&sr=8-1

 

I do recommend James Taylor's Poetic Knowledge, that Faith mentioned.

 

Wisdom & Eloquence, the book mentioned above is excellent. One of my favorites on Classical Ed. Decidedly Christian and decidedly from the non-ages & stages camp of Classical Educators. When I first read it, I thought their discussion of Sayers-model was a little harsh, but I found the rest of the book helpful.

 

I always post this and no one else seems to love it like I do ... Christopher Perrin from Classical Academic Press wrote a great little booklet An Introduction to Classical Education: A Guide for Parents (free as pdf) about Classical Education that does a great job of bridging between Sayers model and the Trivium as disciplines view.

[serendipitous journey]

RE Things Circe ...

 

The program I work with, Aquinas Learning is based in a model different from Sayers. The Circe Institute is all about this model. I am sorry I can't link right now but if you google Circe institute you can investigate them. ...

This book is short and readable and has given me a perspective on "Classical Ed" and the trivium that is non-Sayers. It is co-written by Andrew Kern, founder of CIRCE.

 

Faith, I'll look into the Aquinas model. I'd not heard of it. For all y'all other folks who haven't heard of it either, a quick Google run produced this page which claims to summarize Aquinas' educational beliefs/system.

 

hmmm ... regarding Circe, I drew great inspiration from some of the posts on the huge Circe thread last year and listened to part of a lecture by Kern. Not sure which one -- but it involved, among other things, a call to some of the pre-Enlightenment values of chivalry and the other Old Values of that time, and Kern seemed either unaware of or dismissive of the basic thrust of chivalry. Chivalry involved a code of rules that were an improvement over chaos, but involved acute awareness of social station and constrained violence. For example, a knight courting a woman of higher station observed one set of proprieties (marrying her not being necessary, IFYKWIM); courting one of his own station, rather less formality and effort; a woman of the peasant class, no courting at all (not to draw a picture, but it was unpleasant for the peasant involved).

 

In general, and aside from perhaps pedantic reflections on what chivalry was or wasn't, Kern seemed oblivious to the patterns of violence and the rigid social structures (damaging to individual development, particularly for poor or female persons) within cultures of honor, and to the morally repugnant realities of society of those earlier times; and esp. to the morally repugnant philosophies of some of the authors he quoted. This made it impossible for me myself to benefit from the educational content of his lecture and has made me suspicious of Circe materials, though not of the trend of the Circe thread or of some of the Circe ideals. It seems to me that the Christian aspect and imagery of Kern's lectures has such resonant appeal with many Christians that the particulars of his argument are not automatically challenged -- the zeitgeist of his speech feels morally intuitive & true, and the details seem less essential. I am approaching the particulars from a more academic perspective, and an understanding of Christianity that is different to the Protestant one. At any rate: there are board members I know to be serious & thoughtful persons who find they have benefited greatly from Andrew Kern's work, so clearly Circe philosophy is one of those things that draws very different responses from the classically-minded crowd.

 

I will look at the amazon page of that book co-authored by Kern, at the least, and see if I can read a bit of it. It's prob. too much to hope that my library has it!

 

RE Climbing Parnassus, which is also in several responses: this is sort of like the Circe thing ... I am one of those who pretty much detested it! I thought the argument was emotionally appealing but unfounded. Particularly the argument that the best thinkers/writers were classically educated. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, just about the ONLY advanced education available was classical. But Climbing Parnassus is so popular, I think I should find it at the library again and give it another round. As I get -- ahem! -- more "mature" I'm better able to pull benefit from things I don't wholly agree with or appreciate :) .

 

Okay, off to read more and reflect and respond a bit later (I had two wisdom teeth pulled today, so DH has the littles and I have the unplanned-for bonus of free time during which I can't really zoom around and Clean and Organize, and I'm too spaced out to Solve My Curriculum Problems. So I am thinking about homeschool theory instead! whoo-hoo!)

[ladydusk]

I'm a CiRCE fan and have learned a lot from them and Andrew Kern in particular. I don't, however, recommend the book with Gene Veith. I found it tedious and not all that engaging and didn't finish it ... I should probably try again one of these days since it's on my shelf. I hear they are reworking it and hope to publish a new edition; hopefully greatly improved IMO.

 

ETA: I also never managed Climbing Parnassus. I've tried a couple of times, it might be time to try it again, too. He sure likes the expensive words. (In general, I appreciate a wide vocabulary and love words, but when an author is using it in a pretentious, unnatural way, I don't see the need to fight through it)

[serendipitous journey]

I'm not sure a Circe-type education would be a pre-Sayers classical education. At the very least it would be a very American classical education. I highly doubt it would be seen as classical education in most of Europe. Ana, did you see this thread: http://forums.welltr...on#entry3610992 This book was written for schools, so not immediately applicable for homeschool parents, but still very interesting. At least, I think so :D.

 

Tress, that is a very interesting book! It includes several characteristics I've come to notice about the old Classical ed, such as Latin not taught to 7-year-olds and history started around age 8 - 10 ... as well as an emphasis on the importance of physical and moral training. Not as huge an emphasis on the aesthetic, though (it's included in the intellectual section) which seems to reflect a fundamental difference btw. the Classical education of the Classical cultures and the medieval/European Classical model ... here's a direct link to the book for other thread-readers: Teacher's and Parents' Manual of Education: being a plan for a uniform course of study

From the title y'all will see the author's value of a uniform, systematic and standardized mode of education...

 

Wisdom & Eloquence, the book mentioned above is excellent. One of my favorites on Classical Ed. Decidedly Christian and decidedly from the non-ages & stages camp of Classical Educators. When I first read it, I thought their discussion of Sayers-model was a little harsh, but I found the rest of the book helpful. I always post this and no one else seems to love it like I do ... Christopher Perrin from Classical Academic Press wrote a great little booklet An Introduction to Classical Education: A Guide for Parents (free as pdf) about Classical Education that does a great job of bridging between Sayers model and the Trivium as disciplines view.

 

Ladydusk, I smiled when I read that "no one else seems to love" that book like you do! Me too!!! Nobody loves my favorites. Well, I downloaded it & hope to read it this PM. A quick glance showed references to Chesterton & Lewis too: that bodes well!

 

and since you and Faith and Maria (OrdinaryTime) all rec'd the Wisdom and Eloquence, and it isn't at the library, I may indulge in a paperback copy of it ...

 

ETA: The "Search Inside" feature gave me a glimpse into Wisdom and Eloquence, and already the book has helped me vastly! I have a strong negative reaction against the "beauty" in the usual litany of the values "truth, goodness and beauty" for many reasons. Excellent reasons, really, though I won't defend them here. But in this line from page 18: "The Christian's life-long task is to increasingly express one's God-given personality according to Biblical norms of truth, goodness, and beauty." -- that really helps me get more comfortable with the beauty thing; I'll just mentally tack "Biblical norms" onto it.

 

Though it matters greatly to me which Biblical norms; but we shall never all of us agree on "Biblical norms" so that is to be expected ...

[serendipitous journey]

Cardinal Newman's "The Idea of a University" is free here.

 

Cardinal Newman assumes the Catholicism of a University the way many other sources listed on the thread assume the Christianity of a Classical school. Let me encourage you to skim the Catholic bits if they do not interest, or even if they offend (I myself am ideologically quite far from a reverence for the Holy See & the Magisterium): there are lovely, generous, and important ideas here. Consider:

 

"There are three great subjects on which human reason employs itself: God, Nature, and Man ..." This seems powerfully focusing and simplifying to me. Grant room in the conception of "God" to include one's particular ultimate faith, and the list serves all very well ...

[kristinannie]

I also recommend Poetic Knowledge. It is an excellent book (although I am not even half way through reading it). Another wonderful book is Four Cultures of the West. I am currently reading this as well and nothing has enlightened me more than this book when it comes to understanding why our schooling differs so much from the way that I want to homeschool. It is a decidedly Catholic book so you might want to take that into consideration if you don't want that. It is an excellent book though!

[Faithr]

RE Things Circe ...

 

 

 

 

Faith, I'll look into the Aquinas model. I'd not heard of it. For all y'all other folks who haven't heard of it either, a quick Google run produced this page which claims to summarize Aquinas' educational beliefs/system.

 

hmmm ... regarding Circe, I drew great inspiration from some of the posts on the huge Circe thread last year and listened to part of a lecture by Kern. Not sure which one -- but it involved, among other things, a call to some of the pre-Enlightenment values of chivalry and the other Old Values of that time, and Kern seemed either unaware of or dismissive of the basic thrust of chivalry. Chivalry involved a code of rules that were an improvement over chaos, but involved acute awareness of social station and constrained violence. For example, a knight courting a woman of higher station observed one set of proprieties (marrying her not being necessary, IFYKWIM); courting one of his own station, rather less formality and effort; a woman of the peasant class, no courting at all (not to draw a picture, but it was unpleasant for the peasant involved).

 

In general, and aside from perhaps pedantic reflections on what chivalry was or wasn't, Kern seemed oblivious to the patterns of violence and the rigid social structures (damaging to individual development, particularly for poor or female persons) within cultures of honor, and to the morally repugnant realities of society of those earlier times; and esp. to the morally repugnant philosophies of some of the authors he quoted. This made it impossible for me myself to benefit from the educational content of his lecture and has made me suspicious of Circe materials, though not of the trend of the Circe thread or of some of the Circe ideals. It seems to me that the Christian aspect and imagery of Kern's lectures has such resonant appeal with many Christians that the particulars of his argument are not automatically challenged -- the zeitgeist of his speech feels morally intuitive & true, and the details seem less essential. I am approaching the particulars from a more academic perspective, and an understanding of Christianity that is different to the Protestant one. At any rate: there are board members I know to be serious & thoughtful persons who find they have benefited greatly from Andrew Kern's work, so clearly Circe philosophy is one of those things that draws very different responses from the classically-minded crowd.

 

I will look at the amazon page of that book co-authored by Kern, at the least, and see if I can read a bit of it. It's prob. too much to hope that my library has it!

 

RE Climbing Parnassus, which is also in several responses: this is sort of like the Circe thing ... I am one of those who pretty much detested it! I thought the argument was emotionally appealing but unfounded. Particularly the argument that the best thinkers/writers were classically educated. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, just about the ONLY advanced education available was classical. But Climbing Parnassus is so popular, I think I should find it at the library again and give it another round. As I get -- ahem! -- more "mature" I'm better able to pull benefit from things I don't wholly agree with or appreciate :) .

 

Okay, off to read more and reflect and respond a bit later (I had two wisdom teeth pulled today, so DH has the littles and I have the unplanned-for bonus of free time during which I can't really zoom around and Clean and Organize, and I'm too spaced out to Solve My Curriculum Problems. So I am thinking about homeschool theory instead! whoo-hoo!)

 

Those are some really interesting links. The one about St. Thomas Aquinas was interesting if not particularly well written. But somehow from that page, I got to page that lists synopsis of all different educational theories of lots of different people. Reading the one by Mortimer Adler, I'd say that that definitely is closest to the philosophy behind Aquinas Learning and also the Circe Institute. Very interesting links though. I had fun perusing them and may go back for more. The one on La Salle was very well written and differed greatly in approach, so I guess he wasn't classical but had a more modern mindset.

 

Thanks again for some interesting reading!

[Faithr]

I also recommend Poetic Knowledge. It is an excellent book (although I am not even half way through reading it). Another wonderful book is Four Cultures of the West. I am currently reading this as well and nothing has enlightened me more than this book when it comes to understanding why our schooling differs so much from the way that I want to homeschool. It is a decidedly Catholic book so you might want to take that into consideration if you don't want that. It is an excellent book though!

 

That O'Malley book looks really intriguing! I'm putting it on my TBR pile!

[ElizaG]

The one about St. Thomas Aquinas was interesting if not particularly well written. But somehow from that page, I got to page that lists synopsis of all different educational theories of lots of different people. Reading the one by Mortimer Adler, I'd say that that definitely is closest to the philosophy behind Aquinas Learning and also the Circe Institute. Very interesting links though. I had fun perusing them and may go back for more. The one on La Salle was very well written and differed greatly in approach, so I guess he wasn't classical but had a more modern mindset.

 

St. Jean-Baptiste De La Salle does seem to have made a lot of use of textbooks and rote learning. (NB -- the order he founded isn't the same as the Irish Christian Brothers who taught school in Ireland, Newfoundland, and elsewhere, and had a reputation for harsh discipline. De La Salle's French Christian Brothers are a different group altogether. I was quite confused until I figured this out!)

 

But I wouldn't say that Adler was "more classical" than De La Salle. They both cut corners in the name of efficiency, as they both had a severe lack of qualified teachers (i.e., practically speaking, pretty much none), and were in the position of trying to teach large numbers of students from poor educational backgrounds. In De La Salle's case, they were literally poor primary and elementary aged children, most of whom would had received no formal education at all without his efforts. And from what I've read, his original lay teachers were only a little more educated than their pupils.

 

Adler's students were better educated by some standards, but having gone through the modern high school system, they lacked the specific background that had always been held to be necessary for the study of the classics at the college level. And again, most of the professors in his circle weren't much better off. So his plan involves reading large numbers of books in translation, which does a number on the whole "poetic" aspect of language. It's also based on discussion among a group of peers, with the idea that "the books teach themselves" -- which goes much farther than De La Salle in taking away the traditional role of the teacher.

 

Of course, they were also working with very different age groups. De La Salle's primary and elementary method was meant to give children a foundation in the "4 R's," and allow them to pursue a classical education in the future if they were able and willing to go that far (which most of them weren't -- and he was aware of this). By contrast, Adler's method is commonly understood (rightly or wrongly) as actually providing a classical education.

 

This is a topic I'd be very happy to discuss in more depth, because to me, it gets right to the heart of the matter: What is "classical education?" And how do we provide this -- or at least, go as many steps as we can in the right direction -- if we don't have the background and resources ourselves?

 

But since this wasn't the OP's question, I'll just stop here, and go do some laundry. :)

[Hunter]

I recommend reading Part 2 of Climbing Parnassus, before reading part 1.

[OrdinaryTime]

This is a topic I'd be very happy to discuss in more depth, because to me, it gets right to the heart of the matter: What is "classical education?" And how do we provide this -- or at least, go as many steps as we can in the right direction -- if we don't have the background and resources ourselves?

 

But since this wasn't the OP's question, I'll just stop here, and go do some laundry. :)

 

 

I decided pretty early on there was no way I could provide a classical education to my kids if I homeschooled them. I do not know Latin or Greek. While I don't have a settled view of exactly what a classical education entails, it does seem to at least entail being able to fluently read Latin and Greek at some point. I don't see this as a feasible goal for my children if I am their primary teacher since I don't think I can adequately help them master two very difficult subjects of which I have almost zero knowledge. I made my peace with it. I would rather them get the other benefits I can provide them as their teacher than pursue a classical education.

[SunnyDays]

Christopher Perrin from Classical Academic Press wrote a great little booklet An Introduction to Classical Education: A Guide for Parents (free as pdf) about Classical Education that does a great job of bridging between Sayers model and the Trivium as disciplines view.

 

Ladydusk, thank you! I started reading through this yesterday and it has a lot of good information.

 

 

I decided pretty early on there was no way I could provide a classical education to my kids if I homeschooled them. I do not know Latin or Greek. While I don't have a settled view of exactly what a classical education entails, it does seem to at least entail being able to fluently read Latin and Greek at some point. I don't see this as a feasible goal for my children if I am their primary teacher since I don't think I can adequately help them master two very difficult subjects of which I have almost zero knowledge. I made my peace with it. I would rather them get the other benefits I can provide them as their teacher than pursue a classical education.

 

This is sort of where I am... I keep waffling on teaching Latin... I know it would be beneficial, but *I* have no background in it, and there are other ways we'd like to spend our time, so we've settled on teaching Latin and Greek roots.

 

I'm going for more of a "classically inspired" education rather than strictly classical, if that makes sense. We won't learn Latin or Greek, but will study roots. We don't follow a strict history cycle, but I do intend to cover ancient history all the way up through the present at least once. We read a lot of everything, including some twaddle LOL, but I am planning to incorporate good classics a bit more each year. That sort of thing. :)

[OrdinaryTime]

I think I will likely teach Latin. (No Greek unless someone decides to self-educated!) But I have real doubts that even with outside tutors or classes, we reach a fluency levels that allows my kids to read Cicero or Virgil in Latin during their high school years, which is what I would expect from a classical education. I am just not an adequate guide for that type of education.

[ElizaG]

I guess the reason I'm still on board with this is that I've come to think of classical education as a lifetime journey. We can use our own knowledge and resources to help equip our children, and we can start on the path with them, but by its nature it isn't something that even the most skilled parent can "provide" to them during their homeschooling years. It's something they're going to have to end up pursuing themselves, by continuing to seek the truth of things, and by following up on opportunities to learn from the people, artifacts, and situations around them.

 

Because of this, I'm growing more inclined to look at the curriculum in terms of the "why," "what," and "how," and the order of learning and development, rather than the "when" in the sense of meeting conventional deadlines. (Not talking here about college entrance requirements, which are a whole other kettle of fish.)

 

For what it's worth, though, I don't think reading Cicero in high school is up there with rocket science. It's more of an intermediate thing, which is supposed to be doable by a reasonably bright student who's completed a couple of solid years of grammar (e.g., Henle I & II, or Artes Latinae I & II, or Latin Prep/SYRWTLL) and has some help from a teacher or tutor, either online or face to face. For instance, both Lone Pine and Lukeion have their students start reading Latin authors in their third high school year. These students aren't expected to have had any Latin at the elementary or middle school level. According to the sidebar on Lukeion's page, they aren't in favor of starting before ages 12-15 (more or less, depending on the child).

 

I know that these types of courses are outside some families' budgets. But for those of us who still have children below high school age, who knows what resources might be available to them in the future? And again, this is a lifelong thing.

 

Taking a step back, it also seems to me that the same sort of argument could be made against teaching modern foreign languages. Many American homeschooling parents aren't fluent in any language other than English. But if they think it's important for their children to learn Spanish, French, Mandarin, or whatever (either for career reasons, or just to be a better educated person), they'll do what they can to support and encourage this.

 

It could also be said of high school mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc. People who are dubious about homeschooling will often ask questions like, "How can a parent teach calculus without having studied it?" There's a grain of truth there, in that we can't pass along what we don't have. And it would be much simpler if we were all experts in everything. :D But we aren't, and yet somehow previous generations of homeschooled students have managed to learn these things anyway -- if not perfectly, then at least, in many cases, far better than their parents did. Sometimes, far better than their parents had imagined possible.

 

From what I've read on the high school board, this happens because there's a natural transition from "parent as teacher" to "parent as facilitator." It can be hard for me to remember this, when I'm up to my elbows in little ones, but I'm going to just trust that it's true. :)

[Kfamily]

I'm not sure if this book has been mentioned here yet, but it looks interesting to me. Unfortunately, I can't look at it very closely, since I'm living in Japan and can't open books at Google.

 

 

A History of Education in Antiquity Henri Marrou

 

This book was quoted at this blog:

 

http://buckholler.wordpress.com/papers/the-classical-classroom-what-should-my-child-be-learning/

 

which I've found very helpful in explaining the points found in the Circe and Andrew Kern threads.

[Jayne J]

Just wanted to direct folks to an old thread started by Hunter, discussing the question of teaching our kids things we never learned or mastered. I can't link since I am on my iPad (grrrr!), but if you search for "3 generations of homeschooling to dig out of this mess??" you might enjoy the discussion. It gave me a lot of food for thought in regards to going beyond what I learned to give my children more, and what exactly might be possible. Hunter always asks the most thought-provoking questions. But it is utterly off the OPs topic of pre-Sayers classical models.

[ElizaG]

I'm not sure if this book has been mentioned here yet, but it looks interesting to me. Unfortunately, I can't look at it very closely, since I'm living in Japan and can't open books at Google.

 

A History of Education in Antiquity Henri Marrou

It really is good. I hope you can get a chance to read it. :)

 

The part that stood out to me the most was the emphasis on music in the early years -- both through lessons in singing (and sometimes playing an instrument), and as a part of the cultural environment. The Greeks passed on their great poems by singing them, with accompaniment from stringed instruments. And later, in Christian times, young pupils would learn to chant the Psalms and other prayers.

 

This was different from the abstract study of music theory, which was done by adults as part of the quadrivium. Through imitation of models, these young children were developing skills in "doing" music, and were simultaneously being formed in their own cultural heritage.

 

ETA: Until very recently (with the pushing of reading and writing instruction to younger ages), even the modern concept of "early childhood education" retained this emphasis on music. Once the professional kindergarten and Sunday School teachers got their hands on it, there was an unfortunate tendency to stuff the curriculum with songs that were hokey and didactic. But the basic developmental idea is still a sound one.

[Kfamily]

 

It really is good. I hope you can get a chance to read it. :)

 

The part that stood out to me the most was the emphasis on music in the early years -- both through lessons in singing (and sometimes playing an instrument), and as a part of the cultural environment. The Greeks passed on their great poems by singing them, with accompaniment from stringed instruments. And later, in Christian times, young pupils would learn to chant the Psalms and other prayers.

 

This was different from the abstract study of music theory, which was done by adults as part of the quadrivium. Through imitation of models, these young children were developing skills in "doing" music, and were simultaneously being formed in their own cultural heritage.

 

ETA: Until very recently (with the pushing of reading and writing instruction to younger ages), even the modern concept of "early childhood education" retained this emphasis on music. Once the professional kindergarten and Sunday School teachers got their hands on it, there was an unfortunate tendency to stuff the curriculum with songs that were hokey and didactic. But the basic developmental idea is still a sound one.

 

I think I'll just have to order this one. :)

[OrdinaryTime]

I'm not sure if this book has been mentioned here yet, but it looks interesting to me. Unfortunately, I can't look at it very closely, since I'm living in Japan and can't open books at Google.

 

 

A History of Education in Antiquity Henri Marrou

 

This book was quoted at this blog:

 

http://buckholler.wordpress.com/papers/the-classical-classroom-what-should-my-child-be-learning/

 

which I've found very helpful in explaining the points found in the Circe and Andrew Kern threads.

 

I've read that blog before, but not that particular post. Great, concise summary of what I consider to be Circe's general concept of classical education. Thanks for sharing.

[OrdinaryTime]

I guess the reason I'm still on board with this is that I've come to think of classical education as a lifetime journey. We can use our own knowledge and resources to help equip our children, and we can start on the path with them, but by its nature it isn't something that even the most skilled parent can "provide" to them during their homeschooling years. It's something they're going to have to end up pursuing themselves, by continuing to seek the truth of things, and by following up on opportunities to learn from the people, artifacts, and situations around them.

 

Because of this, I'm growing more inclined to look at the curriculum in terms of the "why," "what," and "how," and the order of learning and development, rather than the "when" in the sense of meeting conventional deadlines. (Not talking here about college entrance requirements, which are a whole other kettle of fish.)

 

For what it's worth, though, I don't think reading Cicero in high school is up there with rocket science. It's more of an intermediate thing, which is supposed to be doable by a reasonably bright student who's completed a couple of solid years of grammar (e.g., Henle I & II, or Artes Latinae I & II, or Latin Prep/SYRWTLL) and has some help from a teacher or tutor, either online or face to face. For instance, both Lone Pine and Lukeion have their students start reading Latin authors in their third high school year. These students aren't expected to have had any Latin at the elementary or middle school level. According to the sidebar on Lukeion's page, they aren't in favor of starting before ages 12-15 (more or less, depending on the child).

 

I know that these types of courses are outside some families' budgets. But for those of us who still have children below high school age, who knows what resources might be available to them in the future? And again, this is a lifelong thing.

 

Taking a step back, it also seems to me that the same sort of argument could be made against teaching modern foreign languages. Many American homeschooling parents aren't fluent in any language other than English. But if they think it's important for their children to learn Spanish, French, Mandarin, or whatever (either for career reasons, or just to be a better educated person), they'll do what they can to support and encourage this.

 

It could also be said of high school mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc. People who are dubious about homeschooling will often ask questions like, "How can a parent teach calculus without having studied it?" There's a grain of truth there, in that we can't pass along what we don't have. And it would be much simpler if we were all experts in everything. :D But we aren't, and yet somehow previous generations of homeschooled students have managed to learn these things anyway -- if not perfectly, then at least, in many cases, far better than their parents did. Sometimes, far better than their parents had imagined possible.

 

From what I've read on the high school board, this happens because there's a natural transition from "parent as teacher" to "parent as facilitator." It can be hard for me to remember this, when I'm up to my elbows in little ones, but I'm going to just trust that it's true. :)

 

 

I really like your first two paragraphs here. It is good to take a nice, long view! :-)

 

Also, I don't think it is impossible for a homeschooling parent, with no prior knowledge of Latin or Greek, to help their child reach the kind of fluency traditionally expected in classical schools by the end of high school. (I really love reading C.S. Lewis' autobiography, Surprised by Joy, to get an idea of what a modern classical education was like to some degree. Made me so ashamed of my high school education the first time I read it.) I just don't see it happen very often. Hardly ever, in fact. On the high school boards, while there are some whose kids have made impressive progress in their Latin or Greek studies (I rarely see both being pursued to a high degree), I don't think I have ever read about a boardie having their child read the majority of the classics (Homer, Herodotus, Cicero, Virgil, etc.) in Latin and Greek. Only one comes to mind, and she was fluent in both languages already. Even with online programs and outside tutors, I really think it is very difficult for a non-classically educated parent to guide their child through that kind of education without hiring an almost full-time tutor. And that kind of tutor - one who would not just teach Latin and Greek but read through the serious works with them in these languages - is hard to find in most places. Add on top the fact that this parent is already probably guiding them through a modern language, higher level math and science, which they also do not know or have to refresh from their past....it is a very difficult undertaking.

 

I thought Hunter's thread, linked to above and which I remember reading with interest, pointed to some important ideas about needing a certain kind of culture to be able to create a certain kind of education. To try to re-create an education that is far removed from ourselves as teachers and our wider cultural experience is very, very difficult. I'm not saying don't try, just that it important to have our eyes open to the obstacles.

 

Plus I am absolutely horrid at languages and the idea of teaching all these kids three foreign languages makes me want to break out in hives! :-)

 

Okay, serendipitous journey, I'll stop derailing this thread now. I promise!

[ElizaG]

Also, I don't think it is impossible for a homeschooling parent, with no prior knowledge of Latin or Greek, to help their child reach the kind of fluency traditionally expected in classical schools by the end of high school. (I really love reading C.S. Lewis' autobiography, Surprised by Joy, to get an idea of what a modern classical education was like to some degree. Made me so ashamed of my high school education the first time I read it.) I just don't see it happen very often. Hardly ever, in fact.

 

(...) I thought Hunter's thread, linked to above and which I remember reading with interest, pointed to some important ideas about needing a certain kind of culture to be able to create a certain kind of education. To try to re-create an education that is far removed from ourselves as teachers and our wider cultural experience is very, very difficult. I'm not saying don't try, just that it important to have our eyes open to the obstacles.

 

I don't disagree. Just wanted to add that I'm not sure that American 19th and early 20th century grammar schools would have been teaching to the standard Lewis describes, either. This is something I haven't looked into, but from comments I've read here and there, it seems as if the British and American models of classical education were quite different. Several sources (both British and American) claim that the British way did more to develop the ability to read, think, and write. I'm not sure what they mean by this, though. Maybe someone else can enlighten us further -- and if they happen to have outlines to share, that would also get us nicely back on topic. ;)

 

On the high school boards, while there are some whose kids have made impressive progress in their Latin or Greek studies (I rarely see both being pursued to a high degree), I don't think I have ever read about a boardie having their child read the majority of the classics (Homer, Herodotus, Cicero, Virgil, etc.) in Latin and Greek. Only one comes to mind, and she was fluent in both languages already.

 

Yes, it would be difficult to get that far, and it's possible that only a relatively small number of students could manage it. But when I look around the boards and see so many involved parents with academically inclined children, I'm left with the impression that more students could get a good foundation in one or both languages than are doing so. And I think a large part of this gap is related to parents' expectations.

 

The parents' expectations, in turn, are shaped by the present-day educational landscape. And the "Sayers-inspired" homeschooling curricula are also responding to the same conditions, by aiming either at standard college preparation (e.g., TWTM), or at a "Great Books in translation" education (e.g., MODG). Neither of these pursuits requires applicants to know Latin or Greek -- let alone at a high level -- so why would people bother?

 

This is how classical education disappeared in the US in the first place. Harvard and Yale started lowering and then eliminating their requirements for classical languages... so students stopped taking these courses in secondary school... so the secondary schools stopped offering them. It was a top-down thing. And here we are trying to solve it from the bottom up. How peculiar of us. :hat: :D

[ladyinthegarden]

Thank you to everyone for the recommended books on this thread. I wanted to add a book I recently read to the list. It's free on google books as well. I gleaned a lot of insight from reading it. The book is called Record of a School and it's about Amos Bronson Alcott's school, he was Louisa May Alcott's father. http://books.google.com/books?id=-rsMAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false If you have read everything else about classical education this book will make lightbulbs go off in your head. :)

[Faithr]

This is so cool! We just watched a lecture on Louisa May Alcot yesterday. Her father was quite a character, in both good and bad ways. I look forward to reading this!