Question about WTM Philosophy

[thebacabunch]

Keep it real; go look at a lot of siggies and you will see that many (if not most) of us are doing a neoclassical education. I would say that what sets classical students apart is the study of things throughout all grades that are shoved down the throat of the "smart" kids in AP classes in high school. We study history chronologically and from the beginning. We study Latin in some form (for instance, my dd's have learning disabilities that impede the study of Latin as a whole but thrive by learning Latin and Greek roots and reading a lot of old primary source books). We study logic as a subject on its own. We use the socratic method (often through audiobooks and computer classes, lol) to teach.

 

Remember that you are teaching YOUR child. If you find classical education intriguing you fit here. If you like some of the curriculum, you fit here. Embrace what you do: a traditional education with a sprinkling of classical curriculum.

[lewelma]

I think maybe I should stop talking, because I'm not being a good communicator!

 

 

I know exactly what you are after. Let me first say that I know NOTHING about Seton. In addition, I am not focused on being classical -- I am just not into labels. Finally, I have not read all the responses, so sorry if I am repeating someone. So given all those qualifications, this is what I think you need to do to make any program more classical:

 

1) Input. You want to work as much as possible from the original sources -- those that have not been condensed, edited, interpreted etc. So for history - more primary sources, for literature - more great books, for grammar/copying/dictation - more from great children's literature etc. And I would argue for science - more investigations.

 

2) Processing/output. You want to process the input with more holistic means. Not worksheets or fill-in-the-blanks. More narration, writing, analysis, interaction, discussion, etc. You need to use the entire bloom's taxonomy - recall, knowledge, analysis, interpretation, evaluation etc.

 

3) Authentic learning. You need to learn for the sake of learning and minimize the importance of testing.

 

4) Integration of silos of learning. I will use writing as an example. You need to learn to write by studying the masters -- outline their thoughts, analyze their rhetorical style and elocution. You are learning a skill by way of content areas. You would not use a how-to-write workbook.

 

Key Tools required to achieve above:

1) Memory

2) Logic

3) Rhetoric

4) Latin

5) and a very patient mother.

 

The WTM first edition achieved much of the above. But so few people were able to implement it that SWB started to write curricula that mimics the approach. They are not as good as doing the heavy lifting that her mother taught her to do.

 

HTH,

 

Ruth in NZ

[Chrysalis Academy]

I know exactly what you are after. Let me first say that I know NOTHING about Seton. In addition, I am not focused on being classical -- I am just not into labels. Finally, I have not read all the responses, so sorry if I am repeating someone. So given all those qualifications, this is what I think you need to do to make any program more classical:

 

1) Input. You want to work as much as possible from the original sources -- those that have not been condensed, edited, interpreted etc. So for history - more primary sources, for literature - more great books, for grammar/copying/dictation - more from great children's literature etc. And I would argue for science - more investigations.

 

2) Processing/output. You want to process the input with more holistic means. Not worksheets or fill-in-the-blanks. More narration, writing, analysis, interaction, discussion, etc. You need to use the entire bloom's taxonomy - recall, knowledge, analysis, interpretation, evaluation etc.

 

3) Authentic learning. You need to learn for the sake of learning and minimize the importance of testing.

 

4) Integration of silos of learning. I will use writing as an example. You need to learn to write by studying the masters -- outline their thoughts, analyze their rhetorical style and elocution. You are learning a skill by way of content areas. You would not use a how-to-write workbook.

 

Key Tools required to achieve above:

1) Memory

2) Logic

3) Rhetoric

4) Latin

5) and a very patient mother.

 

The WTM first edition achieved much of the above. But so few people were able to implement it that SWB started to write curricula that mimics the approach. They are not as good as doing the heavy lifting that her mother taught her to do.

 

HTH,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

 

I wish I could "like" posts twice :hurray: :hurray:

[8filltheheart]

 

 

I know exactly what you are after. Let me first say that I know NOTHING about Seton. In addition, I am not focused on being classical -- I am just not into labels. Finally, I have not read all the responses, so sorry if I am repeating someone. So given all those qualifications, this is what I think you need to do to make any program more classical:

 

1) Input. You want to work as much as possible from the original sources -- those that have not been condensed, edited, interpreted etc. So for history - more primary sources, for literature - more great books, for grammar/copying/dictation - more from great children's literature etc. And I would argue for science - more investigations.

 

2) Processing/output. You want to process the input with more holistic means. Not worksheets or fill-in-the-blanks. More narration, writing, analysis, interaction, discussion, etc. You need to use the entire bloom's taxonomy - recall, knowledge, analysis, interpretation, evaluation etc.

 

3) Authentic learning. You need to learn for the sake of learning and minimize the importance of testing.

 

4) Integration of silos of learning. I will use writing as an example. You need to learn to write by studying the masters -- outline their thoughts, analyze their rhetorical style and elocution. You are learning a skill by way of content areas. You would not use a how-to-write workbook.

 

Key Tools required to achieve above:

1) Memory

2) Logic

3) Rhetoric

4) Latin

5) and a very patient mother.

 

The WTM first edition achieved much of the above. But so few people were able to implement it that SWB started to write curricula that mimics the approach. They are not as good as doing the heavy lifting that her mother taught her to do.

 

HTH,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Ruth, your post is spot on. You succinctly encapsulate the key components of classical ed.

 

Seton entails a heavy workload of traditional input/output, especially time-consuming in the upper levels. If a student is enrolled in Seton, incorporating multiple additional works and assignments is going to almost be the equivalent of having a student complete 2 "school" loads.

 

Unless Seton has changed policies significantly, diploma seeking students don't have a lot of flexibility about how and what they submit for grades for credit. Programs like Kolbe allow parents a lot more leeway in how to accomplish academic credits and that freedom makes adapting to student needs/family goals much easier.

 

I am personally not a die-hard anything. ;) My homeschool reflects an eclectic mix of what works for each individual child. At this point, we are definitely shifting toward more pure classical for my older kids b/c it is a good fit for them. I don't want to give the impression that I am dissuading from incorporating/rejecting different things. I was attempting to answer the OP in terms of Seton. (which is again different from a simple definition of what classical education is and isn't.)

[PeterPan]

Susan, your question is perfectly reasonable. The problem is, sometimes only *you* can find the answer for yourself. As you say, you're going to need to sit down with WTM again, go through the chapters and recommendations and say Ok, SWB suggests using this in this way for this goal. Can I change the way I use my materials to work with that or be improved by that methodology? It's all there, but it's something you earn for yourself, not something that can be given.

 

Yes, you can be influenced by WTM, participate in the boards, have something valid to contribute, and have your own way of interacting with the materials. For us WTM has been this sequence of stoplights where we stop, pondering how we're doing things, and keep going. I've usually tried to do that a couple times a year (during planning, midyear, etc.).

 

What I don't know is how much structure Seton provides you. Like if you're already starting with lesson plans, then it doesn't make sense to rewrite them and constantly fight. But find the inspiration from WTM that works for you, kwim? Take what works and leave the rest. It DOESN'T have to be just about content. It can be, but it can be about methodology or spirit too. So read a chapter, see how it inspires you, and adapt it to your dc and situation. Then read the next chapter and repeat. Nobody can give that to you, because it's individual. :)

[PeterPan]

Btw, the boards don't have to be a contentious place. (replying to the comment on some people being contentious or prickly and hard to talk around) There's a really nice IGNORE function in your control panel. When I got pregnant 4 years ago (now almost 5, time flies!), I was so irritable, I put lots of people on ignore just so *I* would stay nice. Firm believer in ignore. Lets everybody get along. :)

[PachiSusan]

Ruth, your post is spot on. You succinctly encapsulate the key components of classical ed.

 

Seton entails a heavy workload of traditional input/output, especially time-consuming in the upper levels. If a student is enrolled in Seton, incorporating multiple additional works and assignments is going to almost be the equivalent of having a student complete 2 "school" loads.

 

Unless Seton has changed policies significantly, diploma seeking students don't have a lot of flexibility about how and what they submit for grades for credit. Programs like Kolbe allow parents a lot more leeway in how to accomplish academic credits and that freedom makes adapting to student needs/family goals much easier.

 

I am personally not a die-hard anything. ;) My homeschool reflects an eclectic mix of what works for each individual child. At this point, we are definitely shifting toward more pure classical for my older kids b/c it is a good fit for them. I don't want to give the impression that I am dissuading from incorporating/rejecting different things. I was attempting to answer the OP in terms of Seton. (which is again different from a simple definition of what classical education is and isn't.)

 

Seton is constantly changing and morphing. I have not encountered the rigidity you and others talk about, so it's hard for me to put myself in your perceptions of it. I have used it since Kindergarten for my daughter. They changed the vocabulary program when I asked. They offered science options when I didn't like theirs. They talked with me about different programs and how they differ/line up with theirs.

 

If you are talking of the upper high school years only, then I have heard that many times. I've also been told that they are working hard on their high school program and it's going to be changing somewhat - offering online courses, more flexibility. I don't know when that is supposed to roll out, but I bet by the time Melissa is in high school, it WILL be different. If not, we will choose another way. :)

 

On that note, I think it's time to move on from what Seton isn't, to what I'd like to accomplish with my child - and that is in my hands now. Thank you for all your most learned direction. I've copied the advice down and will be referring to it as I plan 5th grade. :)

[PachiSusan]

THank you Ruth, this is exactly what I was asking. I have done many things that you list and I will continue to do so. We go to original sources after we read our spine. I have her narrate and outline her science and history. Her science actually has experiments every 1-2 days. We're constantly doing experiments. We do continue to use the workbooks, but that's only after the narration and discussion of the material. We do the testing that's required, but I minimize it saying "This is just to let Seton know that we're on track".

 

Where I need to work a LOT more on is writing.

 

Key Tools required to achieve above:

1) Memory

2) Logic

3) Rhetoric

4) Latin

5) and a very patient mother.

 

Number 5 we need to work on the most! ;)

 

I know exactly what you are after. Let me first say that I know NOTHING about Seton. In addition, I am not focused on being classical -- I am just not into labels. Finally, I have not read all the responses, so sorry if I am repeating someone. So given all those qualifications, this is what I think you need to do to make any program more classical:

 

1) Input. You want to work as much as possible from the original sources -- those that have not been condensed, edited, interpreted etc. So for history - more primary sources, for literature - more great books, for grammar/copying/dictation - more from great children's literature etc. And I would argue for science - more investigations.

 

2) Processing/output. You want to process the input with more holistic means. Not worksheets or fill-in-the-blanks. More narration, writing, analysis, interaction, discussion, etc. You need to use the entire bloom's taxonomy - recall, knowledge, analysis, interpretation, evaluation etc.

 

3) Authentic learning. You need to learn for the sake of learning and minimize the importance of testing.

 

4) Integration of silos of learning. I will use writing as an example. You need to learn to write by studying the masters -- outline their thoughts, analyze their rhetorical style and elocution. You are learning a skill by way of content areas. You would not use a how-to-write workbook.

 

Key Tools required to achieve above:

1) Memory

2) Logic

3) Rhetoric

4) Latin

5) and a very patient mother.

 

The WTM first edition achieved much of the above. But so few people were able to implement it that SWB started to write curricula that mimics the approach. They are not as good as doing the heavy lifting that her mother taught her to do.

 

HTH,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

[PachiSusan]

 

Remember that you are teaching YOUR child. If you find classical education intriguing you fit here. If you like some of the curriculum, you fit here. Embrace what you do: a traditional education with a sprinkling of classical curriculum.

 

 

Thank you! That's a good thought process to keep in my mind and that's what I am aiming for.

[PachiSusan]

Susan, your question is perfectly reasonable. The problem is, sometimes only *you* can find the answer for yourself. As you say, you're going to need to sit down with WTM again, go through the chapters and recommendations and say Ok, SWB suggests using this in this way for this goal. Can I change the way I use my materials to work with that or be improved by that methodology? It's all there, but it's something you earn for yourself, not something that can be given.

 

Yes, you can be influenced by WTM, participate in the boards, have something valid to contribute, and have your own way of interacting with the materials. For us WTM has been this sequence of stoplights where we stop, pondering how we're doing things, and keep going. I've usually tried to do that a couple times a year (during planning, midyear, etc.).

 

What I don't know is how much structure Seton provides you. Like if you're already starting with lesson plans, then it doesn't make sense to rewrite them and constantly fight. But find the inspiration from WTM that works for you, kwim? Take what works and leave the rest. It DOESN'T have to be just about content. It can be, but it can be about methodology or spirit too. So read a chapter, see how it inspires you, and adapt it to your dc and situation. Then read the next chapter and repeat. Nobody can give that to you, because it's individual. :)

 

 

Thank you, that is what I have come to: it's all up to me. I can ask for advice, but really, I am the only one who can do it.

 

The lesson plans at Seton are merely a suggestion on how to get the material done in the time frame of your year. HOW you teach it is completely up to you.

[PachiSusan]

Btw, the boards don't have to be a contentious place. (replying to the comment on some people being contentious or prickly and hard to talk around) There's a really nice IGNORE function in your control panel. When I got pregnant 4 years ago (now almost 5, time flies!), I was so irritable, I put lots of people on ignore just so *I* would stay nice. Firm believer in ignore. Lets everybody get along. :)

 

 

Oh I know. I don't have any one on ignore and I rarely if ever use it. I just take myself away from the thread or board until I can shrug my shoulders and move on. :)

[PeterPan]

Btw, I wasn't meaning to be trite. What I was talking about is how I've always used WTM. I end up looking at each thing and asking how I can translate it into my dd's context and the list WE'RE using. I never, ever change my materials to fit what WTM/SWB says, because that's lunacy. I have exactly the materials that fit my dd, but the way I use them can change, the spirit, the goals. I have a strong focus on foundations, on the ability to express and get thought to word, word to paper. We did narrations when she was young, but we'd bust them out. When SWB/WTM said do them as copywork, we were doing recipes. Just on and on, forever taking the concept and asking how it translates into our materials and what works for us. Now that I'm approaching the high school stuff there's this philosophical shift I have to wrangle with. Implicit in her approach to history/lit/GB are some issues with worldview. Again I'm going to reread and say what is skill, what is content, what is goal that is independent of material, and what is because of her particular worldview (on what's important, the role of the student, etc.). I can separate those issues and take what works for me and leave the rest. And it's not that I'm inferior if I use one aspect and not another. I have no clue about Seton, but I think it's very possible to step back and think about how you're using it. As you say, sometimes there's a very classical (as in old classical, trivium, not neo-classical/wtm) underpinning philosophically to materials like that. I know BJU has it. It's not so overt, and sometimes it's so subtle people don't even realize what's going on. When you read WTM and you see those components and how they flesh out, you catch it and you go OH, that's why they're doing that! Then you know to emphasize that and do it MORE.

[PachiSusan]

Btw, I wasn't meaning to be trite. What I was talking about is how I've always used WTM. I end up looking at each thing and asking how I can translate it into my dd's context and the list WE'RE using. I never, ever change my materials to fit what WTM/SWB says, because that's lunacy. I have exactly the materials that fit my dd, but the way I use them can change, the spirit, the goals. I have a strong focus on foundations, on the ability to express and get thought to word, word to paper. We did narrations when she was young, but we'd bust them out. When SWB/WTM said do them as copywork, we were doing recipes. Just on and on, forever taking the concept and asking how it translates into our materials and what works for us. Now that I'm approaching the high school stuff there's this philosophical shift I have to wrangle with. Implicit in her approach to history/lit/GB are some issues with worldview. Again I'm going to reread and say what is skill, what is content, what is goal that is independent of material, and what is because of her particular worldview (on what's important, the role of the student, etc.). I can separate those issues and take what works for me and leave the rest. And it's not that I'm inferior if I use one aspect and not another. I have no clue about Seton, but I think it's very possible to step back and think about how you're using it. As you say, sometimes there's a very classical (as in old classical, trivium, not neo-classical/wtm) underpinning philosophically to materials like that. I know BJU has it. It's not so overt, and sometimes it's so subtle people don't even realize what's going on. When you read WTM and you see those components and how they flesh out, you catch it and you go OH, that's why they're doing that! Then you know to emphasize that and do it MORE.

 

 

I think we're pretty compatico... :) I know you weren't being trite at all. You were very helpful in your comments. You're doing what I was asking how to do! :)