Better Late philosophy vs Classical Education

[MomintheMountains]

Hello, wondering if I can get some help wrapping my mind around an idea. Is it possible to combine the Moore philosophy of delaying a formal education with classical education? I have dabbled in classical through the years (10 years of homeschooling) and I am considering getting serious about implementing a more rigorous classical education. However, I have all boys and they really resist much formal learning when they are young. My now 16 and 10 year old learned to read young and easily, but I am struggling with my 8 and 6 year old. My 8 year old is just now taking off in reading and my 6 year old will only willingly practice reading for about 5 minutes at a time here and there. I am inclined to not push, but if I wait until 8, 9 or 10 to be more formal with their education and allow them to learn to read later, then I will have missed the whole grammar stage. Can I start classical education at a later age at an accelerated pace or am I missing the point of a classical education? Can I have the boys do things like memorization, history that I read aloud, etc. and consider that grammar stage learning? In other words, can late readers or struggling readers still build a grammar stage foundation? And what about Latin? Help! Input, ideas, suggestions, links, books would all be helpful. I need to see the big picture and I can't quite put it together.

[MrsH]

I've wondered about this too and can't speak from an "is it ok" (w/ whom anyway?) perspective, but I can share what we're doing. My eldest was in public school through 3rd grade. When she came home, we started history w/ early modern b/c we live in New England and it made sense to do awesome field trips, and she was interested.  Last year we did ancients... mostly just b/c she wanted to. We're pretty easy on the grammar but we did start WWS last year b/c she wanted to work on her writing.  Other than that, we generally followed WTM.

 

Then my son came home this past year, after having a tough tough time in 1st grade.  He's on an IEP and receives language and reading services (no specific diagnosis at this time).  He likes math and is good at it, but has a hard time even there w/ language.  We're focusing on an hour on the couch w/ good books of my choosing, mostly following WeeFolk Art and historical recommendations from SOTW and Classical House of Learning.  We talk about what we read and I hope to get to formal narrations sometime in the next few years. He practices his handwriting, and we do science stuff based on his interest (low right now!).  Mostly he wants to be let loose to run around and build stuff out of materials that we'd rather he not get into :) So I provide a lot of time for that and try not to stress about all that grammar stage foundational stuff too much. I hope that he's getting the exposure he needs to open up the world around him, and the free time he needs to explore and learn on his own terms.  I try not to think too much about where he may or may not be in a few years, and instead to really tackle the here and now: foster a love of reading, and support his mathematical progress w/out being hindered by language.

 

Some will probably argue that I'm not doing enough, but seeing his confidence soaring gives me hope.

[dbmamaz]

idk, i read and LOVED TWTM and thought I, and my daughter, would have loved it.  But then I looked at the two boys I was homeschooling and said - no way.  I still designed a curriculum by subject, I did NOT end up really doing much foreign language at all, I try to push them as much as they can comfortably do.  But they are not classical kids.  They are really square pegs and for me, its more important to honor and support them, as they are, work with their strengths and weaknesses, rather than conform to any one curriculum plan.  

 

thats just me . . . 

[Ravin]

Formal education can be done in the classical model later than the modern practice. The three phases can simply be condensed, especially the grammar stage.

[8filltheheart]

FWIW, classical education originally began when children were between the ages of 9-11 b/c in antiquity little children were not attending school.   Academics for under 5-7 is a modern invention.   The concept of grammar, logic and rhetoric as stages vs. subjects is a neo-classical interpretation of classical education.   Young students are capable of achieving more than the modern definition of "grammar stage."   I strongly disagree with this assessment of the cognitive abilities of young kids:  http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/grammar/overview.html 

 

For example, my 3 yr old obviously makes conceptual leaps.   They may not be accurate, but she is definitely making them.    For example, this summer she came inside and told my 14 yod that she needed to go outside with her to get her "photosynthesis."   That is simply from listening to conversations amg her elders.   ;)   Anyone spending any time studying cognitive development would not accept the premise that children are not actively engaged in higher order reasoning.

 

ETA:   Oops, I meant to say that my approach is to embrace the best amg the educational philosophies that I agree with and morph them into our own philosophy.

[PeterPan]

Hello, wondering if I can get some help wrapping my mind around an idea. Is it possible to combine the Moore philosophy of delaying a formal education with classical education? I have dabbled in classical through the years (10 years of homeschooling) and I am considering getting serious about implementing a more rigorous classical education. However, I have all boys and they really resist much formal learning when they are young. My now 16 and 10 year old learned to read young and easily, but I am struggling with my 8 and 6 year old. My 8 year old is just now taking off in reading and my 6 year old will only willingly practice reading for about 5 minutes at a time here and there. I am inclined to not push, but if I wait until 8, 9 or 10 to be more formal with their education and allow them to learn to read later, then I will have missed the whole grammar stage. Can I start classical education at a later age at an accelerated pace or am I missing the point of a classical education? Can I have the boys do things like memorization, history that I read aloud, etc. and consider that grammar stage learning? In other words, can late readers or struggling readers still build a grammar stage foundation? And what about Latin? Help! Input, ideas, suggestions, links, books would all be helpful. I need to see the big picture and I can't quite put it together.

 

I think you're mixing two issues here.  It's one thing to have an overall better late than early approach.  I read the Moores' books when my dd was little, and I get where that's coming from.  I still own them in fact, never sold them.  However what you're talking about is the issue of late bloomers and sorting out is what timetable, etc.  That's totally different.  There's an open letter a lady on the boards wrote years and years ago, and every so often somebody brings it back up and reposts it, because it's really worth thinking about.  I'll do that here, if you'll pardon the fact that it's long.  Again, just food for thought.  Then I'll come in with my two cents (or three) with my dd who hasn't exactly been a picnic to teach and my ds who enjoys his school work classical-style even though he's an over-the-top wiggly boy with a serious speech problem.

 

I'll begin the reposts next...

[PeterPan]

Laurie's open letter:

This is an appeal from the heart to my sisters and brothers in the homeschooling community. Many children and families in the homeschooling community are needlessly suffering because of some of our widely accepted beliefs that are closer to myth than to reality. The children that I ache for are those with learning problems. You may prefer to call them learning differences or disabilities, but these are kids who are not learning at the expected level for their age group even with adequate instruction. The advice often given by the homeschooling community when the mother or father begins to search for answers can lead to heartache. 

To simplify, I d like to use the analogy of a cake recipe. Often there are variations that change the flavor of a basic recipe. To keep this simple, the gender of the parent will be female, and the child male. 

The basic recipe calls for: 

One child, somewhere around the age of 5-6 eager to learn. Unbeknownst to anyone, he has specific learning disabilities. 

One homeschooling mom, wanting to provide the very best in education for her child, eagerly looking for curriculum suggestions, reading books, optimistic about what she can provide. Like every loving parent, she wants her child to be normal and it will be sorrowful to her to find that her child has an actual problem, that he is not just like other kids. 

Please note: mom and student are the same in either variation. It s the way the homeschooling community responds that changes the outcome of the cake. 

Variation 1: Heartbreak cake 

Once the mother begins to notice, or even intuit problems, she begins to ask around for help. This particular cake calls for a homeschooling community that will add the following: 

2 scoops of advice such as better late than early, or many kids don t click till age 10-11 

1 cup of mistrust of professionals; for those who like a less spicy version, this can be the do-it-yourself-ism that is a strength at times of homeschooling;for a spicier version, add fear that that CPS will end up involved if you pursue help 

Make sure the homeschool community bowl is free of any oil of early warning signs of learning disabilities. Even a small pinch of this can result in celebration cake instead (see below) 

7 teaspoons of encouragement to switch curriculum as the answer 

If the batter begins to bubble, continue adding reassurances that her kid will eventually get it and be just fine; if that still doesn t work, add a few more tsps. of encouragement to switch curriculum 

Add one scoop of fear of formal labeling. Natural labeling will occur as the cake bakes over the next few years. (Choice of flavors is typically determined by the child; most common variety is stupid ) 

Bake another 4-6 years or longer if desired, until age 10-12 or longer, waiting for the click. 

If there is no click, you ll have heartbreak cake: a child who has labeled himself stupid, bad, and /or weird and who feels so bad about himself that the original LD is no longer the major problem; a child who may have passed the optimal window for remediation; or who has given up. This cake will likely be glazed by deep parental guilt. * (Note: if you ve baked this cake and didn t mean to, good news at the end. I am in no way condemning you as the parent. I am trying to prevent other heartbreak cakes.) 

Variation 2 : Celebration cake: 

To the same basic recipe, as the mother begins to notice, or even intuit problems, and begins to ask around for help, this cake calls for a homeschooling community that will add the following: 

10 scoops of affirmation to trust your own sense of things as a mother and teacher that something is wrong, even if you can t put your finger on it 

1 scoop of information about early red flags of learning disabilities 

3 cups of networking about effective therapies and strategies 

2 spoonfuls of encouragement that seeking help is not a sign of failure, and that professionals can be a homeschoolers best friend 

No traces of better late than early or late bloomer myths oil in the bowl; this can cause celebration cake to not peak to its highest potential and to revert to heartbreak cake. 

If you see traces of the myth oil above, add one Pascal s wager: if there is nothing wrong, and you get an evaluation, you will have wasted only time and money, and gotten some reassurance. If there are specific learning disabilities present, and you wait till it clicks, you cannot give your child back those lost years, your child will likely have emotional repercussions, you may well have missed the best window of opportunity for remediation, and your child s future may be negatively impacted. Which is riskier? 

If fear of labeling begins to emerge in the batter, add 1 scoop of reality: if your child is different, he will be labeled, by himself and his peers, at least. His labels will be stupid, bad , and/or weird . Adults may throw in lazy or disobedient . The formal labels of learning disability, sensory integration, Asperger s etc. explain what is happening, help the child know he isn t uniquely defective and help you identify strategies. 

(((hugs))) to a parent who may be facing the grief of acknowledging that her child is not normal 

Baking time: no longer than age 7 to begin the process of seeking help; bake for shorter period if problems show up in preschool; after this initial period, turn the heat down slightly and bake as long as it takes, using all the strategies gathered formally and informally, professional help and whatever else it takes 

Voila! Celebration cake! A child who would have struggled through life under other circumstances, but who in the very special oven of homeschooling has had his strengths emphasized, and his education tailored specifically to him. He may have totally overcome his learning disabilities, or he may have been helped to learn effective strategies to navigate around them. 

Some notes: Following the notes are some early warning signs 


If you are a parent reading this, and you realize that you have a heartbreak cake on your hands, I know that you will grieve. Please don t spend a lot of time in guilt. There is still much that can be done. I believe in a God who can redeem even our mistakes and make something beautiful happen. But if you ve got a child who is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 . and you are just realizing that there is not going to be the magic click run, don t walk, to get help. Please get an evaluation, and if you are starting this process at this point, consider some professional tutoring or coaching to help you get things on track. 
A book that you will find encouraging: One Mind at a Time by Mel Levine. Overcoming Dyslexia by Sally Shaywitz is another that is helpful, but you ll have to ignore her belief that only professionals can help a child learn to read. Please also consider putting the energy that you might have put into guilt into preventing this from happening to other families. 

If you are a parent beginning to teach a child to read, check out Overcoming Dyslexia from your library. I think it should have been better titled, Preventing Reading Problems. It will have some useful information for you, too. 

If you are a parent reading this, and you sense you could have heartbreak cake in the making, please get some help. Here are some places to start: 

Where to go for help: Post on the special needs board; you ll find the moms and some professionals who post there very helpful. If you suspect something on the autism spectrum, developmental disabilities, or something very unusual, see if there is a Center for Development and Learning near you. These are often associated with teaching hospitals, and can be one stop shops. If your child demonstrates oversensitivity, stimulus seeking, fine motor skills problems, and/or physical clumsiness, go to an occupational therapist. Problems in speech and language, or for young children having problems with rhyme, see a Speech and Language Pathologist. Learning disability: some psychologists, reading specialists, educational evaluators all can do some of the relevant testing. For reading disabilities, getting an individual achievement test such as the Woodcock Johnson, or Woodcock Reading Mastery Test should be in the $75 range, and give you some good information. The public school system provides free testing for children not yet of school age. I believe it is up to the state or in some states, local districts, as to whether they will test school age children who don t attend. I ll post a link of relevant federal law that also includes a list of advocacy organizations by state. 

~~con't~~

 

Here's the link where you can finish reading.  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/22834-lauries-open-letter/

[MomintheMountains]

I think you're mixing two issues here.  It's one thing to have an overall better late than early approach.  I read the Moores' books when my dd was little, and I get where that's coming from.  I still own them in fact, never sold them.  However what you're talking about is the issue of late bloomers and sorting out is what timetable, etc.  That's totally different.  There's an open letter a lady on the boards wrote years and years ago, and every so often somebody brings it back up and reposts it, because it's really worth thinking about.  I'll do that here, if you'll pardon the fact that it's long.  Again, just food for thought.  Then I'll come in with my two cents (or three) with my dd who hasn't exactly been a picnic to teach and my ds who enjoys his school work classical-style even though he's an over-the-top wiggly boy with a serious speech problem.

 

I'll begin the reposts next...

 

I have read what you posted, and I have thought about it.  I am keeping the idea of looking out for disabilities on the radar screen, but 8FilltheHeart brought up a good point... modern classical education starts younger than it used to.  Dorothy Sayers places the beginning of the grammar stage at about 9 years old.  So I guess I do want to talk about time tables and what is developmentally appropriate.  I don't really think I am mixing up any issues.  The Moores would say that reading doesn't/shouldn't have to start young.  The post about learning disabilities says basically, if a child isn't reading at a young age, test for disabilities and that the better late philosophy is an error in the homeschooling community.  I have a couple of boys that don't want to do a lot of sit down work.  I am thinking that is probably actually pretty normal.  So, if I believe that starting later is better, can I still implement classical education?  What does a classical education look like when starting later?  How can I jump into a curriculum (I would rather not totally design my own) like Mother of Divine Grace or Kolbe if I want to start later?

 

Unfortunately, I posted this twice this morning and couldn't figure out how to delete one of the posts.  In the other thread I did state that I wanted to work on the premise that we are not talking about learning disabilities, but simply about starting a classical curriculum at a later age.  I hope I don't sound defensive, but I just don't want to talk about learning disabilities.  (Not that I don't think it is possible for my sons, but it is just not the conversation I want to have in this thread).  I do appreciate your input!

[MomintheMountains]

I think you're mixing two issues here.  It's one thing to have an overall better late than early approach.  I read the Moores' books when my dd was little, and I get where that's coming from.  I still own them in fact, never sold them.  However what you're talking about is the issue of late bloomers and sorting out is what timetable, etc.  That's totally different.  There's an open letter a lady on the boards wrote years and years ago, and every so often somebody brings it back up and reposts it, because it's really worth thinking about.  I'll do that here, if you'll pardon the fact that it's long.  Again, just food for thought.  Then I'll come in with my two cents (or three) with my dd who hasn't exactly been a picnic to teach and my ds who enjoys his school work classical-style even though he's an over-the-top wiggly boy with a serious speech problem.

 

I'll begin the reposts next...

 

I have read that thread you posted before, and I have thought about it.  I am keeping the idea of looking out for disabilities on the radar screen, but 8FilltheHeart brought up a good point... modern classical education starts younger than it used to.  Dorothy Sayers places the beginning of the grammar stage at about 9 years old.  So I guess I do want to talk about time tables and what is developmentally appropriate.  I don't really think I am mixing up any issues.  The Moores would say that reading doesn't/shouldn't have to start young.  The post about learning disabilities says basically, if a child isn't reading at a young age, test for disabilities and that the better late philosophy is an error in the homeschooling community.  I have a couple of boys that don't want to do a lot of sit down work.  I am thinking that is probably actually pretty normal.  So, if I believe that starting later is better, can I still implement classical education?  What does a classical education look like when starting later?  How can I jump into a curriculum (I would rather not totally design my own) like Mother of Divine Grace or Kolbe if I want to start later?

 

Unfortunately, I posted this twice this morning and couldn't figure out how to delete one of the posts.  In the other thread I did state that I wanted to work on the premise that we are not talking about learning disabilities, but simply about starting a classical curriculum at a later age.  I hope I don't sound defensive, but I just don't want to talk about learning disabilities.  (Not that I don't think it is possible for my sons, but it is just not the conversation I want to have in this thread).  I do appreciate your input!

[8filltheheart]

To answer the question of how you jump in later, if your children have a solid educational foundation, your kids can jump in any time at any level. I have had kids who have never used a packaged curriculum ever jump in and do full Kolbe + additional work in high school with zero problems.

 

Building the foundation is the key. How do you go about that? Lots of options. We are definitely as far from neo- classical as they come, especially in the younger yrs. And, we are believers in Latin one they hit late middle elementary. :)

[La Texican]

(quote)

Perhaps what started it all and has caused it to accelerate in recent times is a loss of priorities, a failure to deal with first things first. Taking as a model the spectacular success in discovery of the hard sciences, we were avid to do “advanced†study considering it somehow to be better than preserving the best. Certainly had we known our Aristotle better we would have remembered why he labeled some things the Physics and others the Metaphysics. Poetry is not an advanced thing; it is, exactly as Latin is, a first thing. It is a child’s thing; perhaps universities can offer it only as an expert discipline assuming that students came first to love it somewhere in an unusual childhood. There is, however, a season to all things, and probably twenty is too late to memorize and there is nothing to remember poetry or even to master a declension. If this be doomsaying, it is shared by the most brilliant intellects I have known. The credentials of those who think this way are impeccable; they are without exception the most successful of teachers, and deeply serious men who despite random and capricious opinion.

(end quote)

 

I wanted to say that the important thing about early classical education as far as I understand is to tell your children a lot of classic stories, which would mean that you read them yourself. I think classical education is very literature based and I base that on the references to "the great conversation" and the heavy recomendation to fill childrens heads with classic fairy tales and mythologies and ancient philosophies. But I wasn't sure if I was right so I googled "early childhood neo-classical education" and the result was this online magazine.

This is the first link it took me to. Don't forget to look at the link that says "What is the socratic method" (even though we've heard of it before it is a beautifully written entry)

 

http://classicalhomeschooling.com/classical-homeschooling-second-issue/classical-vs-modern-educationthe-principal-difference/

[dbmamaz]

wow, i found that cake story quite offensive.  My son was not ready to read at 6.  He was read at 8.  Lots of kids are like that.  

 

When I advise parents, i usually say that if the CHILD is frustrated, you need to do something.  

 

I had 2 kids who read early, one of whom went through a very long, convoluted evaluation process.  and I had one who read late.  And after spending years and dollars and heartbreak on testing and evaluation which was of very little help, I chose to watch my late bloomer and figure out what he needed.  And he did NOT need intervention.  He's fine.

 

So unless someone told me to get him tested, if anyone ever mentioned he might be a late bloomer, i was obviously failed to have a heartbreak?

 

Today my 10 yo son, who did have a lot of insecurity about reading after attending public K, said he couldnt read the Harry Potter books.  I said, yes you could.  He said "they are like a THOUSAND pages!"  I grabbed one.  It was 300 pages.  I told him to read the first paragraph.  At the end of it he laughed, and said he didnt want to stop

 

what a heartbreak.

[PeterPan]

I have read what you posted, and I have thought about it.  I am keeping the idea of looking out for disabilities on the radar screen, but 8FilltheHeart brought up a good point... modern classical education starts younger than it used to.  Dorothy Sayers places the beginning of the grammar stage at about 9 years old.  So I guess I do want to talk about time tables and what is developmentally appropriate.  I don't really think I am mixing up any issues.  The Moores would say that reading doesn't/shouldn't have to start young.  The post about learning disabilities says basically, if a child isn't reading at a young age, test for disabilities and that the better late philosophy is an error in the homeschooling community.  I have a couple of boys that don't want to do a lot of sit down work.  I am thinking that is probably actually pretty normal.  So, if I believe that starting later is better, can I still implement classical education?  What does a classical education look like when starting later?  How can I jump into a curriculum (I would rather not totally design my own) like Mother of Divine Grace or Kolbe if I want to start later?

 

Unfortunately, I posted this twice this morning and couldn't figure out how to delete one of the posts.  In the other thread I did state that I wanted to work on the premise that we are not talking about learning disabilities, but simply about starting a classical curriculum at a later age.  I hope I don't sound defensive, but I just don't want to talk about learning disabilities.  (Not that I don't think it is possible for my sons, but it is just not the conversation I want to have in this thread).  I do appreciate your input!

Sorry, I couldn't keep posting.  The board just keeps slowing to nothing.  I understand what you mean.  I don't even LIKE the term learning disabilities, because it mixes up some things that are just DIFFERENCES, not so much disabilities.  Your post made me think of that letter though, and sometimes it's just helpful to file away perspectives that you can think about and come back to later.  Maybe that's not what fits now.  Maybe it helps you set up some delimiters in your mind so you can think about when you're seeing what's within the range of normal and when you're seeing something that should be a flag for you to consider getting some help.

 

My boy LOVES his school work, CRAVES school work, BEGS for it, and will do it at 9 o'clock at night if I let him.  There is not some written in stone thing that gender decides all this.  It can be personality.  Definitely my dd's bent was the opposite.  I make a lot of changes for him and work WITH him.  He has verbal apraxia, can't remember if that's in my sig right now.  It's a motor-control speech problem, not developmental, and he still has certain sounds he can't get.  Anything that requires a lot of precise speech is going to wear him out.  When he was 2, we were doing things like picking up his jaw to help him speak (literally!).  Now it's more just playing games and structuring activities to reinforce what he has while not aggravating what he's not ready for.

 

I think that's a good rule of thumb in general, when you're looking at that mix of what isn't ready to happen.  We do what we can, as we can, and we don't aggravate and ruin the experience over something that isn't yet ready to happen.

 

That doesn't mean I gloss over problems.  I'm keeping tabs on developmentally normal phonological awareness.  I use reading programs meant for dyslexics even though neither of my kids has that label.  I know there are issues there, so I intervene, kwim?  On some of this stuff, it's easier just to go ahead and make the changes.  You might even be unconsciously doing those accommodations, changing things to be more kinesthetic, using shorter sessions, using rewards, etc. etc.

 

Back to teaching!  My ds, as part of his speech therapy, has had some detailed testing that turned up that he is dominantly a kinesthetic learner, so we do a LOT kinesthetically.  We do extensive memory work, as much or more than I did with my dd actually (who had no speech problem and was not a boy, haha), but we do it all while he's IN MOTION.  So he jumps on a trampoline or we throw beanbags or...  It's a full-contact sport teaching him, hehe...  His memory work right now?

 

-the catechism

-Scripture Memory Fellowship ABC memory verses book

-Pudewa's Linguistic Development Through Poetry Memorization program

-short prayers from a children's prayer book--He loves this!

 

Sometimes we throw in another Bible verse book for children or work on a song.  Up until a few months ago he couldn't sing.  Now he can sing, but it doesn't have a totally right tune.  Oh well, we have fun anyway!  Oh, and up until a while ago he wouldn't even repeat the verses after me!  For a couple years I read him the verses and was just utterly hopeless it was even doing any good!  

 

Last year we did the phonograms using AAR pre and some motion instructions for the letters from a book I got at the teacher supply.  We threw in activities from MFW K5.  That was age 4.  He turns 5 next week.  

 

He's EXTREMELY high energy and hits a lot because of sensory.  To do our work I strap him down.  I have a small trampoline, a single line swing and a weighted collar, a brush to do the brushing technique, etc.  Strapping them down gives them sensory input and helps them feel secure and stay focused.  That's how he works.  

 

When we work, we go REALLY FAST!  We're like lightning.  I have the Ziggy Puppet from AAR pre (you can buy it on amazon for $17), and Ziggy comes out to teach phonics stuff.  This morning we did SWR for the first time.  We had been building up to it, clapping syllables, sounding out words, gluing and ungluing, etc.  Last year I used the Jumbo Bananagrams with him a lot, because I could sit on the floor and play games with them.  Today we used rubber letter stamps and stamped out our words.  It only lasts as long as he wants it to.  He's always been one to have a strong sense of self and self-determination, so we just go with it.  

 

We're over half way through the Saxon K5 math, which is very hands-on and adorable.  You do start to see the pattern here, right?  Everything is in motion, nothing written.  Pound it out, act it out.  WTM seems to want you to connect writing and reading, but it's not necessarily timely for all kids.  

 

Right now we're reading the Rainbow Book of American History (Daugherty) and he likes watching the history channel and military channel.  He just dragged off a book about the Vikings.  

 

I give him audiobooks to listen to at bedtime, when he plays, any time we can.  Audiobooks are highly recommended in the K5 section of WTM, and you can easily use them with wiggly boys.  Just crank it up and let them play while they listen!

 

I got him an easel (ikea) and some large (20X36?) tablets from walmart, so he'll do his words with gross motor long before I ever switch him over to writing.

 

He's had issues with phonemic awareness, and until a few months ago couldn't rhyme AT ALL.  Now he's rhyming but it's spotty.  We play games and work on it.  I know he has issues there, so waiting doesn't help that.  His hand hurts when writing, but that's because he's low tone.  Waiting won't help that, so we color, do wheelbarrow, use manipulatives like unit cubes to strengthen our fingers (the 2nd way we spelled our words!), etc.  But for expecting things to gel and get results?  No, I don't expect that to happen for a while.  I'd be shocked if it happened even within the next year.  He's just not there, no click, no nothing.  My dd was almost 6 before reading clicked, even though we were using SWR and had gone through the lists 3 times (with gross motor, then paper, blah blah).  But that doesn't mean there's NOTHING I can do or that waiting makes EVERYTHING better.  The low tone issues need work, the phonemic awareness issues etc. etc.

 

So I proceed forward by disconnecting content and skills and allowing him to have all the CONTENT he's intellectually ready to enjoy without limiting that by saying it has to be connected to certain SKILLS that are going to be developmental.  We'll do tons of history as readalouds, activities, etc., etc, well before he ever starts reading.  Nancy Larson wrote the Saxon K5 and has her own new science program.  I'll consider that for him, simply because she seems to have really nailed where he is developmentally and how his mind progresses.  If you can find that niche, that's an awesome place to be.

 

Just so you know, we've had extremely little curriculum fit us well over the years.  Take that as you will. I'm just saying that can happen.  

 

You're probably wondering about narrations.  I scribed narrations for my dd for a certain amount of time, so that's probably what I'd do for ds.  Again the point is not to link content and skills in the sense of denying content just because they don't have skills or missing the aspect of the skills they ARE ready for.  And really, the whole point of Laurie's open letter was that at some point, if you find yourself making a lot of modifications, at some point it's good to recognize those red flags and get evals, get help.  Evals aren't just about labels.  Evals give you information to teach better.  I wish someone had confronted me a lot earlier than people finally did.  I said things for YEARS here on the boards that were obvious flags.  I chalked things up to development and personality that were actually signs of diagnosable issues we could have been working on.  My dd is NOT defective, and I'm not even sure the label she got is considered an LD.  When we FINALLY broke down and got evals (she was 11-12), we got SO much information, had so many lightbulbs come on.  The changes we made all along (before evals) were appropriate because I WAS working with her and letting her give feedback and being sensitive to development and signs.  The evals just took it further and helped us work on some things we didn't realize we could work on.  Huge turning point for us.  But do as you will.  It's just one of those things to file away and think about.  :)

[alef]

If I am remembering correctly, the Lost Tools of Learning speech by Dorothy Sayers that is so often cited as the basis of the neoclassical model of the trivium in stages suggested the grammar stage start around age nine. Here is a quote: "The scope of Rhetoric depends also on whether the pupil is to be turned out into the world at the age of 16 or whether he is to proceed to the university. Since, really, Rhetoric should be taken at about 14, the first category of pupil should study Grammar from about 9 to 11, and Dialectic from 12 to 14; his last two school years would then be devoted to Rhetoric, which, in this case, would be of a fairly specialized and vocational kind, suiting him to enter immediately upon some practical career. A pupil of the second category would finish his Dialectical course in his preparatory school, and take Rhetoric during his first two years at his public school. At 16, he would be ready to start upon those "subjects" which are proposed for his later study at the university: and this part of his education will correspond to the mediaeval Quadrivium. What this amounts to is that the ordinary pupil, whose formal education ends at 16, will take the Trivium only; whereas scholars will take both the Trivium and the Quadrivium."

 

ETA Sayer also proposed that her classical trivium was to begin after the child knew how to read, write, and cipher.

[PeterPan]

Trying to find the exact things you said to comment on them.  You mentioned your 6 yo would only work on xyz for 5 min. at a time.  My boy (age 4, probably will get a label later, I plan to have him eval'd at some point) can sit for 15-20 min when strapped, so long as he's DOING things, like lightning bolts ZAP, ZAP, ZAP.  Then he does the trampoline to burn off steam, then he comes back and works some more.  

 

Also remember I started him when he was extremely young (like under a year) sitting in a high chair with toys and a timer to build his willingness to do this.  He is NOT a calm child.  He drives us insane his so busy, loud, going.  I'm just saying we didn't get to that all at once.  You might need to start super short, with really planned out activities and a timer.  The timer is your friend.  Sometimes they can stretch themselves to compete with the timer.  Use some rewards.  Self-discipline is a good thing.  I'm NOT talking about something not developmentally appropriate or torture.  I'm just saying try a timer.  See how long they like to sit on a good day, when they're feeling well doing that subject.  Then the next day set it for that length of time plus 30 seconds or 1 minute.  Then when they hit that, congratulate them and give them a cookie or snack break or go blow off steam or whatever.  With my dd, she ran laps between subjects.  We'd work with a timer for 10 min or whatever and then she'd go do laps.  Whew, those were the days.  Memories you're ready to forget, lol!  That's how I did it with her.

 

The Moores are kind of interesting, because they have this intense focus on character and doing.  I also think they would say not to *withhold* things that interest the child.  My child ASKS for read alouds, asks to write, etc.  

 

I have no clue when my ds will read, but I can tell you one thing for certain.  He won't be not reading because I didn't get his eyes checked for developmental vision problems.  He won't be not reading due to remediatable phonemic awareness problems.  He won't be not reading because of undiagnosed auditory processing problems.  Everything that I can do that falls within the realm of things a parent can do, I will do.  He goes to the developmental optometrist, we've done Earobics, and we're doing phonogram-based programs.  There's nothing left that I can do.  Whatever is left is developmental timetable and happens when it happens.  

 

[PeterPan]

If I am remembering correctly, the Lost Tools of Learning speech by Dorothy Sayers that is so often cited as the basis of the neoclassical model of the trivium in stages suggested the grammar stage start around age nine. 

That doesn't necessarily correlate to a learn to read age.  In some countries with later or more traditional school entrances like that, the kids go in already reading.

[alef]

That doesn't necessarily correlate to a learn to read age. In some countries with later or more traditional school entrances like that, the kids go in already reading.

I edited my post above. She did expect them to be reading already. I was trying to address the issue of classical education and a grammar stage beginning later.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think there is a difference between skills and content.  Most children (even toddlers) are learning content (how to name things in their environment, how to count, how to observe cause/effect).  This content gets more and more complicated as they grow.  And if you are in a language rich environment,  kids will be soaking up so much even of history, literature and science.  Skills are much more developmentally dependent and as such will come at different ages for different kids.  So my answer is, sure you can delay learning many of the skills (formal phonics, math etc.) but keep a language rich environment and don't stint on the content.  You don't have to get your content from a book.  There is so much to learn while doing.  And you can sneak some of that formal stuff in there too.  My kids loved going on city or mall walks where they would practice finding the letter in the sign that said "b" etc.  

[ElizaG]

Since ancient times, there have been elementary schools that taught reading, writing, and arithmetic starting at around age 6 or 7 (or even younger, at times, especially if the mother was busy with work or farm and chose to send the little ones along).   The Roman ones were called "ludi litterarii," and the early American ones were called "dame schools" or "petty schools."  These schools were open to boys and girls of varying social classes, so they weren't considered part of the classical education system, which was just for upper-class boys.

 

Children from affluent families were often tutored at home instead   Those who were destined for the grammar schools would be taught Latin and Greek, often from age 8 or so, but the quality of the instruction varied a lot -- and some parents chose to hold off on academics for a few years, especially if the child was thought to be "nervous."  If a boy had been especially well-tutored, he might have been allowed to skip a year or two of grammar school.   Otherwise, he'd start at around age 11 in the first year, with introductory Latin grammar. 

 

The Dorothy Sayers "trivium stages" are kind of their own thing.  For starters, she based them on the course of studies at medieval universities, which was atypical in that it rushed students through grammar to get them to dialectic.  (Aristotle's writings had just been rediscovered, and dialectic was the hot new thing that everyone wanted to study.)   Sayers also claimed that putting dialectic before rhetoric was the "proper" way, but in fact, there is no consistent rule.  If anything, it's more often been the other way around.   For example, the ancient Roman, Western monastic, Carolingian, Byzantine, Jesuit, post-Elizabethan British, and 17th to 19th century American classical schools all taught rhetoric before dialectic.   It seems kind of absurd to suggest that they were all doing it improperly.   ;)  

 

The most typical sequence seems to have been more or less:

 

Elementary school or tutoring:                            7-11

Grammar (including language and literature):    12-15

Rhetoric:                                                             16+

Dialectic:                                                             17+

 

Still, referring to middle school as "the logic years" is somewhat logical, ;) in that the serious study of Latin grammar and translation involves a lot of practical logic (as a PP pointed out).  

 

When it comes down to it, we're all using grammar, logic, and rhetoric from the time we're babies.   They're all aspects of being human.  The names refer to the fact that at each stage of classical education, only one part of the trivium was being taught explicitly, in a formal way, with attention to rules and so on. 

 

Getting back to the OP, though -- delaying academics is neither "classical" nor "non-classical."   There have been people such as J.S. Mill who were studying since age 3, and others whose parents let them run wild until age 12.   This debate is a very old one.   :001_smile:

[NASDAQ]

I would worry more about a six-year-old who wouldn't put up with more than five minutes of instruction, to be honest. I expect more than that from a six-year-old, and I don't think it's developmental for children without learning difficulties.

[MomintheMountains]

Wow, great input. I have a lot to think about. Eliza, yes I know this debate is a very old one, and I have read so much it makes my head hurt. I just need help personalizing it and understanding the contradictions.

 

NASDAQ, I think I misportryed my six year old. He has a fine attention span for certain things. He will sit and listen to read alouds and do bible and prayer memory work with all his brothers for about 40 minutes every morning. Also, when we practice reading his way (which seems like a whole words kind of approach), he will work on it for about 30 minutes. When I try to do a phonics program with him, that is when I can't get 5 minutes out of him.

[MomintheMountains]

ElizaGrace, the sequence you laid out makes sense. It seems to fit with Sayers. I guess it's just that I would like to use a curriculum instead of designing my own and the modern curricula I've looked at and done doesn't fit that sequence.

[8filltheheart]

MomintheMountains,

 

Now that my computer is actually loading pages and I am not just skimming while doing 10 other things, I think my other replies are actually incorrect for what you are actually addressing.  I do agree with (I think OhE, though maybe another poster)  that you are confusing multiple issues.  The Moore's philosophy of better late than early is one issue.   Classical education and how one implements classical education is another.

 

I personally do not accept the Moore's philosophy to the extreme they have taken it.   I am definitely one that subscribes to limited seat time for academic work for young children, but, no, I would never wait until 9 or 10 to actually start teaching my children basic skills.  (I missed that part when I skimmed yesterday.)  5-7 yes.   9, no way.   All of my kids are very different and how I have approached teaching them when they are little has been dissimilar.    I have had kids that really enjoyed sitting and doing "school" and I have had kids that thought it was pure torture and they had far more interesting things to do.   Since it sounds like your younger kids are in the latter category, I'll focus on them.

 

My 2 oldest sons and my 8 yod (for a different reason)  definitely fall into this category.   My oldest ds never colored.   Ever.   His idea of filling in a page that was supposed to be colored was to swipe a single line across the page and declare he was done.  So, I never required anything like that.   He was getting plenty of fine motor skill "time" from building with Legos, using hammer and nails, tying knots, etc.   However, I did expect him to sit with me for about an hour every day when he was 5.   He wanted to learn how to read.  I wanted him to learn how to read.   So we spent some time on phonics and reading.  Same with math, etc.   

 

Our 2nd ds, who has Aspergers, never sat still.  Ever.   I attempted K with him and it was impossible.   He absorbed everything he heard.  He could do multiple things that made it seem like he was completely ignoring you, but could repeat back everything going on around him.   But, sitting to learn to write and read at 5 was just not going to happen.     I waited until first grade.   He started first without knowing his letters or numbers, but by the end of first he could read Charlotte's Web, by the end of 2nd he read the Hobbit.   He did enjoy sitting still and reading once he discovered that he did.   (My oldest ds, however, never enjoyed sitting and reading.   He was constantly constructing, engineering, and designing.....not reading.)   With our Aspie, I had to be creative.   He did math "leap frog style."  I would draw hopscotch blocks or a number line and call out numbers or math facts for him to leap.  He would learn phonics hanging upside down on the sofa, etc.   I kept it short and simple.   (It does not take much time at all.)

 

My 8 yod, unlike her brothers, loves to color and sitting still is not an issue.   However, she was on the "late end" of skills.   She had to be taught her colors (and didn't know them until she was 4).   She couldn't rhyme, couldn't identify final sounds, etc when she was 5.   I knew that pushing K at 5 was going to be an uphill battle and counter-productive.  (FWIW, she has zero evidence of having any sort of learning disability.  She just functions on the later end of the normal bell curve).   Anyway, she did not start K until she was 6.  She is now 8 and in 2nd grade.   She can read books like Burgess's "Adventures of ......." without any problems.   She is 1/2 way through 2nd grade math and will be starting 3rd grade math probably around Feb.     Waiting for her to be ready vs. pushing her to do something that she just wasn't cognitively ready to do enabled her to know nothing but success vs. frustration and failure.

 

But with all of them, by the time they were 6, they were spending at least an hour on targeted skills.

 

All of that is completely irrelevant with classical education, neo or otherwise.   

 

As far as what approach is correct, that is an issue I am not going to address.   But, I have had 10 yr olds doing high school level work and that would not have happened if they didn't have the basic skills to build on first.  

[PeterPan]

Wow, great input. I have a lot to think about. Eliza, yes I know this debate is a very old one, and I have read so much it makes my head hurt. I just need help personalizing it and understanding the contradictions.

 

NASDAQ, I think I misportryed my six year old. He has a fine attention span for certain things. He will sit and listen to read alouds and do bible and prayer memory work with all his brothers for about 40 minutes every morning. Also, when we practice reading his way (which seems like a whole words kind of approach), he will work on it for about 30 minutes. When I try to do a phonics program with him, that is when I can't get 5 minutes out of him.

Kids with adhd often do.  I'm not saying your dc has adhd, but I'm saying you might have a misunderstanding of how it presents.  Also, it's usually accompanied by low processing speed and working memory deficits.  If those are present, it might explain why he shys away from the thing that uses a lot of processing and working memory (decoding words, phonics) but is fine with something more VSL (whole words).

 

Working memory and processing speed are developmental, yes, but a child with those issues will remain *behind his peers* consistently and proportionally without intervention.  It's why the "give them time" approach CAN work but also can BACKFIRE.  It's why somebody on the boards saying "I waited and it all worked out" might not yield the results you were assuming it meant.  Some problems don't just go away with time.  

 

Ironically, those things are straightforward to diagnose and intervene on.  It doesn't mean you can't be developmentally appropriate and wait for things they're not ready for.  I'm just saying not everything is going to get there just by waiting.

[alef]

 

 

Working memory and processing speed are developmental, yes, but a child with those issues will remain *behind his peers* consistently and proportionally without intervention.  It's why the "give them time" approach CAN work but also can BACKFIRE.  It's why somebody on the boards saying "I waited and it all worked out" might not yield the results you were assuming it meant.  Some problems don't just go away with time.  

 

Ironically, those things are straightforward to diagnose and intervene on.  It doesn't mean you can't be developmentally appropriate and wait for things they're not ready for.  I'm just saying not everything is going to get there just by waiting.

 

 

What kind of intervention would help processing speed issues? I recently found out that processing speed is a weakness for my dd (I posted this thread if you want to reply there).

[PeterPan]

What kind of intervention would help processing speed issues? I recently found out that processing speed is a weakness for my dd (I posted this thread if you want to reply there).

I just read your results in your other thread.  It will be interesting to see what your psych says.  I'm not a psych, so the only thing I've dealt with is where *both* were low.  Some people on the LC board have gotten processing speed to improve with Interactive Metronome.  Did you work on digit spans or something requiring working memory before your evals?  You could have splinter skills there (one thing up because of remediation, the rest low) or something entirely different going on.  

 

The Eides' book Dyslexic Advantage presents a really interesting explanation for low processing speed. They talk about MRI research being done to look at the spacing of the mini-columns of the brain and how it can explain why the kids present the way they do (taking a long time to get the connection solid, but having it be this really circuitous path that bumps into a lot of other things along the way).  DA is a great book for a lot of people to read, not just people with kids diagnosed dyslexic.  

 

So yes, the options for processing speed that I know of are meds, IM, and video games.  There are probably more.  It does seem a lot harder to get to budge than say working memory.  Around here it's more something you live with in an understanding way.  (count to 5 Mom, deep breaths, recognize that the low processing speed means they're working a lot harder than NT kids, don't wear them out unnecessarily, use accommodations like calculators to avoid wearing out the kid when the computation wasn't the point, etc.)

[Corraleno]

...I will have missed the whole grammar stage. Can I start classical education at a later age at an accelerated pace or am I missing the point of a classical education? Can I have the boys do things like memorization, history that I read aloud, etc. and consider that grammar stage learning? In other words, can late readers or struggling readers still build a grammar stage foundation? And what about Latin? Help! Input, ideas, suggestions, links, books would all be helpful. I need to see the big picture and I can't quite put it together.

 

There is no "grammar stage" to miss — grammar, logic, & rhetoric are subjects, not "developmental stages."

 

As for whether late readers can still get a "classical education"...  My DS was a late reader, and he did not get any of the so-called "grammar stage foundation" — no grammar workbooks, no logic workbooks, no copy work or memory work. He did a bit of narration & dictation in 3rd grade at a PS charter, but it was so painful —and ineffective — for him that we never did that again. He learned grammar from an intensive summer course and started Greek (Athenaze) in 7th, and Latin (Wheelock's) in 8th (he is now in Greek 3 and Latin 2, and has never gotten less than an A+ in any semester). He has read Homer (including comparing multiple translations and reading some in Greek), Hesiod, Thucydides, Herotodus, Ovid, Vergil, the Greek dramatists, and excerpts from other authors, and his knowledge of Classical art, history, culture, and mythology is extensive. He got gold medals on both the NLE & NGE last year, and plans to either double-major or minor in Classics in college.

 

Miraculously, DS is getting a "classical education" despite having only started in 6th grade and despite not having any of the so-called "grammar stage foundation" as laid out in WTM. (In fact, I am quite sure that, in his case, forcing him to slog through the "grammar stage foundation" work would have turned him off to schoolwork forever.) That's not to say he wasn't developing important skills in critical and analytical thinking (which, IMHO, are the true "foundation" of a classical education, not memorizing state capitals and filling in logic workbooks).

 

 

The concept of grammar, logic and rhetoric as stages vs. subjects is a neo-classical interpretation of classical education.   Young students are capable of achieving more than the modern definition of "grammar stage."   I strongly disagree with this assessment of the cognitive abilities of young kids:  http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/grammar/overview.html 

 

:iagree:  x100

 

Jackie

[MomintheMountains]

I have to admit that I am really not wanting to discuss learning disabilities. NOT IN THIS THREAD. It is not what I was asking about. I don't think I have given you guys enough info to start diagnosing my kids. I don't mean to be rude. It is just not the subject I am asking about here. I am asking can a Better Late philosophy work with a classical education? What is the true proper age/grade start of the grammar stage?

[PeterPan]

I am asking can a Better Late philosophy work with a classical education? What is the true proper age/grade start of the grammar stage?

This is sort of vague.  Have you read WTM yet?  Have you actually sat down, read the chapters, made a list of the skills, the content, etc. and then determined what you're proposing to delay and what you're proposing to do at the suggested ages?  Have you checked with your state homeschooling laws to see if you'll be in compliance if you do that?  

 

I've taught through most of WTM.  In WTM I see skills, content, and goals.  The goal is to give foundational skills so they can go forward.  As long as you get that foundation EVENTUALLY, yes the child has the foundation.  That doesn't mean all outcomes are the same.  Sometimes they are, and yes there's evidence with NT child that some amount of waiting makes little difference.  But I go back to asking what you're proposing to wait on.  Wait on skills while you pump development and content?  Cool.  Wait on content?  That's just unfathomable to me.

 

So what do you really want to do?  You want to do NO school and just farm and raise horses and repair machines and then boom, at age 8 or 9 or 10 sit them down and teach them xyz?  Some kids might be fine with that, absolutely fine, and some kids are going to have the same issues at 8/9/10 that they had at 6, and all you did was kick the can down the road.  MOST people have NO trouble starting some degree of K5 material at age 5/6/7.  When you're talking beyond that, I say that's your red flag waving.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

The Bluedorns do take a later approach with some of the formal parts of classical education.  http://www.triviumpursuit.com/index.php  But read the article that says "Ten Things to do with Your Child before Age Ten".  There is still a lot of learning going on.  People who wait  don't advocate educational neglect. 

[alef]

I just read your results in your other thread.  It will be interesting to see what your psych says.  I'm not a psych, so the only thing I've dealt with is where *both* were low.  Some people on the LC board have gotten processing speed to improve with Interactive Metronome.  Did you work on digit spans or something requiring working memory before your evals?  You could have splinter skills there (one thing up because of remediation, the rest low) or something entirely different going on.  

 

The Eides' book Dyslexic Advantage presents a really interesting explanation for low processing speed. They talk about MRI research being done to look at the spacing of the mini-columns of the brain and how it can explain why the kids present the way they do (taking a long time to get the connection solid, but having it be this really circuitous path that bumps into a lot of other things along the way).  DA is a great book for a lot of people to read, not just people with kids diagnosed dyslexic.  

 

So yes, the options for processing speed that I know of are meds, IM, and video games.  There are probably more.  It does seem a lot harder to get to budge than say working memory.  Around here it's more something you live with in an understanding way.  (count to 5 Mom, deep breaths, recognize that the low processing speed means they're working a lot harder than NT kids, don't wear them out unnecessarily, use accommodations like calculators to avoid wearing out the kid when the computation wasn't the point, etc.)

Nope, I didn't even know what digit spans are. She does play violin, I wonder if music increases working memory? I'm just starting to dip my toe into evaluations, so I don'r really understand much. Her working memory score was at the 94th percentile and her processing speed was at the 9th percentile, that's what got my attention. I will look into the Eides' book, thank you for the recommendation. I'm hoping more people will share insights on the other thread. 

[Corraleno]

I am asking can a Better Late philosophy work with a classical education? 

 

Yes (see my post above).

 

 

 

What is the true proper age/grade start of the grammar stage?

 

There is no such thing as a "grammar stage" (see my post and 8FilltheHeart's posts above).

 

You can teach the "foundational" skills at any age — and the techniques that WTM suggests for teaching those skills are not the only way to get there (nor are the best way for all kids).

 

 

Jackie

[MomintheMountains]

This is sort of vague.  Have you read WTM yet?  Have you actually sat down, read the chapters, made a list of the skills, the content, etc. and then determined what you're proposing to delay and what you're proposing to do at the suggested ages?  Have you checked with your state homeschooling laws to see if you'll be in compliance if you do that?  

 

I've taught through most of WTM.  In WTM I see skills, content, and goals.  The goal is to give foundational skills so they can go forward.  As long as you get that foundation EVENTUALLY, yes the child has the foundation.  That doesn't mean all outcomes are the same.  Sometimes they are, and yes there's evidence with NT child that some amount of waiting makes little difference.  But I go back to asking what you're proposing to wait on.  Wait on skills while you pump development and content?  Cool.  Wait on content?  That's just unfathomable to me.

 

So what do you really want to do?  You want to do NO school and just farm and raise horses and repair machines and then boom, at age 8 or 9 or 10 sit them down and teach them xyz?  Some kids might be fine with that, absolutely fine, and some kids are going to have the same issues at 8/9/10 that they had at 6, and all you did was kick the can down the road.  MOST people have NO trouble starting some degree of K5 material at age 5/6/7.  When you're talking beyond that, I say that's your red flag waving.  

 

I don't think I am being vague.  Plenty of people have responded to my questions with helpful answers.  I feel like you and I are not communicating well (probably my fault, I think I have added extraneous comments that have detracted from what I want to get out of this conversation).  The thing is, I have been homeschooling for 10 years.  I have five children (all boys).  I have two older children who are very good students, so I have obviously have some experience educating my children.  But I have never taken a pure classical approach with them.  I have dabbled over the years with some of the ideas.  I am wanting to implement more of a pure classical education with my younger kids, and transition my fifth grader.  But, I don't believe in pushing too much too soon.   I don't know if that is compatible with classical education.  And I am confused because "authorities" on classical education contradict each other.  Yes, I have read the TWTM, but what Dorothy Sayers proposes, conflicts with TWTM.  And so do other authors.  Honestly, I know this is a WTM board, but I am not planning to model the classical education in my home after SWB's verson of classical education, but something more like Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum by Laura Berquist because it is in line with my theological beliefs.  You have given me some helpful answers, but I never said anything remotely close to the idea that I wanted NO school and to farm until 10 years old.  Huh?  

 

The Bluedorns do take a later approach with some of the formal parts of classical education.  http://www.triviumpursuit.com/index.php  But read the article that says "Ten Things to do with Your Child before Age Ten".  There is still a lot of learning going on.  People who wait  don't advocate educational neglect. 

 

This is helpful!

[ElizaG]

oops... please disregard :001_smile:

[ElizaG]

In case it wasn't clear, the list in my last post wasn't meant to represent the Dorothy Sayers stages.  It's a general sequence of subjects that turns up in the majority of classical systems through history (though not the one Sayers used for her model).  

 

Here's a chart, by way of comparison.  I hope it's somewhat readable.

 

Historical (subjects):      Elementary 7-10;  Grammar 11-15;  Rhetoric 16+;     Dialectic 17+

 

Sayers (stages):            Elementary 6-8;    Grammar 9-11;     Logic 12-14;      Rhetoric 15-16

DYOCC (stages):           Primary 5-7;          Grammar 8-11;    Logic 12-14;     Rhetoric 15-17

TWTM (stages):                                          Grammar 5-9;      Logic 10-13;      Rhetoric 14+

 

 

My first introduction to homeschooling -- before I was married -- was through fellow Catholics who were using DYOCC and MODG.  I think Laura Berquist is a lovely person, and her curriculum seems to suit many families on a practical level.   It could well be the answer to the OP's current search.   (Maybe you could talk to one of their counselors about starting late?   I've heard that they're very helpful.)  

 

At some point, we do have to distinguish between our philosophical ideals, and the reality of finding the most suitable way to teach the children in front of us.  I think it was Hunter who said, "the best curriculum is the one that gets done."  

 

The problem I have with MODG is that it's been seriously oversold on a theoretical level, thus closing some people's minds to the possible benefits of other approaches.  And the same goes for the Great Books format that's followed at the author's alma mater, Thomas Aquinas College.  

 

"I am a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College, in Santa Paula, CA, and my husband was a founder of the college.  I wanted my children to be prepared for the education offered there. If they were well prepared for that education, I knew they would also be prepared for anything else they might desire to do. The education offered there is the education every educated person in Western Civilization once received, sometimes known as a liberal arts education." -- About Us

 

Again, in practical terms, I do think that TAC is one of the better options available at the present time.  We'd support our children if they wanted to go there.  But I find the last two sentences above to be unrealistic and historically inaccurate.  If the leaders of Catholic education get complacent -- feeling as if they've developed some ideal system, and we just have to keep feeding our children through it -- then we're in big trouble in the long run.   This has been demonstrated over and over again.  

 

We need to approach our children's education with humility in the face of such an awesome task -- like the Benedictines -- and keep on working, studying, and most of all, praying.   :001_smile:

 

 

ETA:   I don't mean to be harsh on Laura Berquist, much less to suggest that she lacks humility.   I'm sorry if anything I've written is coming across that way.   My concerns have more to do with the movement in general. 

[8filltheheart]

Eliza Grace,

 

Your post fits with my fairly closely with my understanding as well. I also wanted to mention Our Lady Seat of Wisdom. Our dd attended there and had a wonder classical liberal arts experience.

http://www.seatofwisdom.org/academics/

 

I also think the OP needs to pay attention that though Sayers has the grammar stage at a later age, she still labels it as a stage vs. the original connotation of subject. It is where Jackie and I are attempting to state that there is no "grammar stage" to miss.

[MomintheMountains]

Thank you, thank you... the last two posts are very helpful!  I am going to ponder these posts.  So do you disagree with Sayers all together on the concept of a grammar "stage" (a previous comment leads me to believe, "yes", but I would appreciate clarification).  Is there anything there you agree with?  Do you agree with her ideas on stages of logic and rhetoric?  I know this might be silly, but I feel I have a good grasp on the ideas of logic and rhetoric, but not grammar. 

[8filltheheart]

Thank you, thank you... the last two posts are very helpful!  I am going to ponder these posts.  So do you disagree with Sayers all together on the concept of a grammar "stage" (a previous comment leads me to believe, "yes", but I would appreciate clarification).  Is there anything there you agree with?  Do you agree with her ideas on stages of logic and rhetoric?  I know this might be silly, but I feel I have a good grasp on the ideas of logic and rhetoric, but not grammar. 

 

You are correct in that I do not agree with Sayers's concept of stages of grammar, logic, and rhetoric.   They are subjects, not stages.    If you spend time reading about cognitive development, critical thinking skills, Bloom's taxonomy of higher order thinking skills, etc,  you will see that children of all ages are capable of analysis, etc that in the "stages" philosophy seems to suggest that those higher order thinking skills are only achievable by older children.

[MomintheMountains]

You are correct in that I do not agree with Sayers's concept of stages of grammar, logic, and rhetoric.   They are subjects, not stages.    If you spend time reading about cognitive development, critical thinking skills, Bloom's taxonomy of higher order thinking skills, etc,  you will see that children of all ages are capable of analysis, etc that in the "stages" philosophy seems to suggest that those higher order thinking skills are only achievable by older children.

 

Ok, when do you teach the subjects of grammar, logic, and rhetoric?  

[8filltheheart]

Ok, when do you teach the subjects of grammar, logic, and rhetoric?  

 

I teacher grammar all the way from simple concepts in first through to graduation.  

 

We do not study logic as a separate subject any more.   My older kids did traditional logic and I didn't find the course that helpful.   With my middle kids, we sort of dabble in Kreeft's Socratic Logic during high school---but when life gets hectic it is the first thing that gets dropped.   (we finished about 1/2 the book last yr and then moved 14 hrs across the country, and yep, it got dropped.  ;) ) 

 

Rhetoric, as classically defined, is another course we do not formally study.   We aren't into debate and really a formal debate situation is one of the few areas where I can see rhetoric being successfully practiced.  My kids are expected to write persuasively from late middle school on and to defend their positions when we discuss issues, but that isn't the same as oration.

[MomintheMountains]

I teacher grammar all the way from simple concepts in first through to graduation.  

 

We do not study logic as a separate subject any more.   My older kids did traditional logic and I didn't find the course that helpful.   With my middle kids, we sort of dabble in Kreeft's Socratic Logic during high school---but when life gets hectic it is the first thing that gets dropped.   (we finished about 1/2 the book last yr and then moved 14 hrs across the country, and yep, it got dropped.  ;) ) 

 

Rhetoric, as classically defined, is another course we do not formally study.   We aren't into debate and really a formal debate situation is one of the few areas where I can see rhetoric being successfully practiced.  My kids are expected to write persuasively from late middle school on and to defend their positions when we discuss issues, but that isn't the same as oration.

 

Ok, I am becoming a bit confused.  Do you consider yourself a classical educator?  How do you personally define a classical education? Teaching the trivium and the quadrivium seem to me to be the foundation of a classical education, but you seem to de-emphasize the importance of the trivium.  Or am I not understanding you (which is very possible)?

[8filltheheart]

Ok, I am becoming a bit confused.  Do you consider yourself a classical educator?  How do you personally define a classical education? Teaching the trivium and the quadrivium seem to me to be the foundation of a classical education, but you seem to de-emphasize the importance of the trivium.  Or am I not understanding you (which is very possible)?

 

No, I do not call myself a classical educator though I do lean more toward the classical philosophy as my kids get older.  As I wrote in my earlier post, I embrace what I see as the best of various methodologies and incorporate them in to my own methodology for each individual child.   (none of my kids' educations resembles another exactly.   There is a wide variation in subject matter)   If I had to narrow my position to a single one, it would be most aligned with the Ignatian philosophy of classical education which I describe here:  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/152489-what-is-not-a-classical-education/?p=1465072

 

Jesuit methodologies have influenced my educational methods quite a bit.   So has Bloom's Taxonomy and my research into the cognitive development in children.

 

[ElizaG]

I agree with 8FilltheHeart that formal rhetoric and dialectic aren't essential for all our students.   In the old US system, these subjects were mostly taught at the college level (thus the high schools were called "grammar schools").   Christian monastic schools also tended to focus on grammar.  Students who wanted to study logic or rhetoric beyond the earliest stages might end up going elsewhere to continue their education. 

 

The Jesuits' typical classical course consisted of grammar, then humanities, then rhetoric.  Dialectic was an optional advanced subject, and quite a few students left before even getting to rhetoric.  So 8's emphasis on grammar is pretty consistent with that model -- though of course the SJ would have been teaching in Latin, not the vernacular. 

 

As a classical subject, "grammar" was much broader than our present understanding of the term.  It included the study and interpretation of written texts, and the knowledge that was thought to be required do justice to this:  foreign languages, poetic meter, literary and historical allusions, and so on.   For Christians, this could include the study of the Bible and the Church Fathers, as well as Greek and Latin authors. 

 

Natural science can also be seen as a branch of grammar, in the sense of learning to read the Book of Nature.

 

Some people are going to be called to careers that require intense study of dialectic and rhetoric:  the clergy, the law, politics, etc.   But my sense is that, for most homeschooling families, classical education becomes more feasible (and enjoyable) when we focus most of our resources on grammar.   In the broad sense.   :001_smile:

[Pen]

Hello, wondering if I can get some help wrapping my mind around an idea. Is it possible to combine the Moore philosophy of delaying a formal education with classical education? I have dabbled in classical through the years (10 years of homeschooling) and I am considering getting serious about implementing a more rigorous classical education. However, I have all boys and they really resist much formal learning when they are young. My now 16 and 10 year old learned to read young and easily, but I am struggling with my 8 and 6 year old. My 8 year old is just now taking off in reading and my 6 year old will only willingly practice reading for about 5 minutes at a time here and there. I am inclined to not push, but if I wait until 8, 9 or 10 to be more formal with their education and allow them to learn to read later, then I will have missed the whole grammar stage. Can I start classical education at a later age at an accelerated pace or am I missing the point of a classical education? Can I have the boys do things like memorization, history that I read aloud, etc. and consider that grammar stage learning? In other words, can late readers or struggling readers still build a grammar stage foundation? And what about Latin? Help! Input, ideas, suggestions, links, books would all be helpful. I need to see the big picture and I can't quite put it together.

 

 

If children have normal abilities, and with a solid educational background, then you can certainly start things like Latin and so on at a later age.  (I took Latin in 7th and 8th grade.)  

 

You can also start Latin the way true classical children in antiquity would have done it--which is not at age 9 or so in school, but as soon as they started to hear it as the language spoken to them from birth, and as their own language to speak from whenever they started to talk.   It was not a "dead" language back then.  It was also probably easier than English to do as a written language later because it is pretty much a phonetic language.   I don't think there were probably as many books meant for children then as there are now (picture books, early readers etc.--)  maybe not any, so probably reading before the maturity level to handle what was written would have been hard.  But the phonetic aspects of the reading would have been easier.   I think.  That is also true nowadays when for some languages, it is much easier for a native speaker to start into reading at a fairly high level quite quickly because the language is so much more phonetic and regular than English.

 

Even if you missed the baby stage, you could, if you know Latin well yourself, start it now as a spoken language.  Some churches still have Latin services, and if you have access to one, you could go to listen to that perhaps too.  And I think maybe programs like Song School Latin use music as a way to learn.  That is just my impression, as we are not doing Latin except for Word Roots.

 

My son was a struggling reader when I pulled him out of B&M school at the start of grade 2, and had not learned much of anything else in school.   He was caught up in math by the end of grade 2.  In grade 3 he was still behind in reading, and started SOTW by my reading aloud and by listening to the commercial audio version, and that worked fine.  He had been through the whole thing aurally by early grade 4--the same as if he had done one book per year from grade 1.   However, in some areas of Language Arts, such as grammar and spelling, he is still catching up, and to me it has not made sense to try to do Latin when English still needs time and energy.  OTOH, he did start German.

 

Though listening is not the same as reading a book oneself, it does help not to get too far behind for a struggling reader.   Still, if a child is reading a lot from an early age onward, it is hard to totally catch up to that starting later, and can get more frustrating to try to do so.    I know this from experience since I was in the situation of having a struggling reader--and though he was in bricks and mortar schools at the time, much of the post about the heartbreak cake might fit.  

 

I would be inclined to try to keep up in any way you can with content areas--whether you use a classical model or not--such as using audio materials, visual materials, hands on learning--perhaps especially for science, reading aloud to them, having them narrate to you, doing art, and having art and music appreciation, music, nature appreciation, and so on, while they are working on their reading and other skills areas as much as you feel able to do that.  You can also work on building up stamina for formal education gradually increasing reading, math, etc. time, at the same time as you are working on the skills themselves.

 

If you do not mind shifting our of the WTM Classic mode and time frame, you can do a lot with games for logic early on--things like Chess, Rush Hour, Sudoku, and so on.  By happenstance, not planned and before I had ever heard of WTM or was even homeschooling, my son started playing chess as a 5 year old, which I think has helped his thinking skills a great deal.

 

I am an eclectic homeschooler, by the way, using some Classic ideas and also a lot of other things as they seem to fit the actual needs of my actual child.

[Corraleno]

Teaching the trivium and the quadrivium seem to me to be the foundation of a classical education...

 

The quadrivum is arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy — I doubt that even a large minority of people here teach music and astronomy at a high school level, and everyone covers many subjects that go well beyond the quadrivium: biology, chemistry, physics, trig, calculus, history, government, economics, etc. And of course both the trivium and quadrivium were preparation for the study of philosophy and theology, yet very few "classical educators" today study philosophy beyond reading a bit of Plato and Aristotle.

 

There are so many different definitions, styles, and flavors of "classical education," and many of the components of the various neo-clasical systems really have nothing to do with "classical education" — including the idea of grammar, logic, and rhetoric as developmental stages. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric are basically the study of the structure of language, argument, and writing/debate. It's possible to become highly skilled in all those areas without following WTM, or even any other neoclassical blueprint. That is what I, and I think 8FilltheHeart, are talking about — pursuing the overall goals of classical education, but through means that are more modern, or efficient, or more suited to our individual children, or whatever.

 

I "teach" grammar in context, by reading good literature and by correcting my children's English (or, with DD,  through a bit of Latin) in the elementary years, and then I have used (DS) and will use (DD) Lukeion's intensive grammar course in 6th, followed by intensive Latin (and, for DS, Greek). Informal logic and critical thinking are taught from birth, just in the course of everyday life, as well as through chess, Mastermind, analyzing commercials/ads/speeches, etc. Then they will do formal logic in HS. DS has learned the art of  "rhetoric" by reading excellent academic papers and essays, and watching Teaching Company lectures in which the country's best professors present evidence and defend their theses, since early middle school. Also, I use Socratic questioning from the time they're toddlers ("What do you think about that? How do you think that might work? Can you think of another way to accomplish the same thing? etc.)

 

I don't do anything "the WTM way," to be honest, but my kids study Latin and Classical history/art/literature, and they read Great Books, and they will study a LOT of philosophy in high school, from PreSocratics to Post Modernists, because IMHO that is where logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, and Western Civ all come together. Other people may consider themselves "classical educators" even if they skip Latin and read little Classical literature, because they use FLL and SOTW and do a 4-yr history rotation, even though none of those things are really "classical." IOW, as a label, "classical educator" means too many different things to be really meaningful.

 

Jackie 

[MomintheMountains]

 IOW, as a label, "classical educator" means too many different things to be really meaningful.

 

Jackie 

Hmmmm.  Well, then I am barking up the wrong tree.  I came to this board to try and understand classical education better and to find out if my ideas about a more relaxed education in the early years could still fit in with a classical education.  But if we cannot even define the term, "classical education", then how can we come together and discuss it?  Reading interpretations of classical education, such as Sayers, and then looking at the application of classical ideas in modern curricula has caused me much confusion.  I see a great deal of contradiction.  In this thread the confusion and the contradictions continue.  

 

I think that I am interested in reading more about the Jesuits and the application of classical education in Catholic education.  Ultimately, to me, Catholic education is more important than classical education.  I think my next reading stop is Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits.  I will also take suggestions! 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Hmmmm.  Well, then I am barking up the wrong tree.  I came to this board to try and understand classical education better and to find out if my ideas about a more relaxed education in the early years could still fit in with a classical education.  But if we cannot even define the term, "classical education", then how can we come together and discuss it?  Reading interpretations of classical education, such as Sayers, and then looking at the application of classical ideas in modern curricula has caused me much confusion.  I see a great deal of contradiction.  In this thread the confusion and the contradictions continue.  

 

I think that I am interested in reading more about the Jesuits and the application of classical education in Catholic education.  Ultimately, to me, Catholic education is more important than classical education.  I think my next reading stop is Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits.  I will also take suggestions! 

Don't give up.  Many of us are classical educators.  The problem is that not everyone on this forum is a classical educator.  Grammar stage learning might not be age specific but it is foundational.  It is the process of learning the technical jargon of a subject and learning its grammar (how it fits together).  You need to have this foundation before you can learn to look at something critically for problems and learn to talk about it systematically (logic).  And you need to be able to do that stage before you can argue or discuss something persuasively (rhetoric).  Obviously there is some back-and-forth here - you might or might not learn the harder terms of biological classification until later, for example.  

 

In your OP you asked about reading history aloud.  Yes, that would be a good way for your kids to learn the "grammar" of history - of the main people and events and a basic flow for how history fits together over time.  The same would be true for science if you read aloud or just did lots of hands on experiments and nature study.  They would be learning scientific terms and basic scientific laws even if they cannot yet articulate those laws.  I think it would be a rare child who did not learn some math or phonics/reading before age ten but I think it can definitely be through a more discovery approach.  

[8filltheheart]

Hmmmm.  Well, then I am barking up the wrong tree.  I came to this board to try and understand classical education better and to find out if my ideas about a more relaxed education in the early years could still fit in with a classical education.  But if we cannot even define the term, "classical education", then how can we come together and discuss it?  Reading interpretations of classical education, such as Sayers, and then looking at the application of classical ideas in modern curricula has caused me much confusion.  I see a great deal of contradiction.  In this thread the confusion and the contradictions continue.  

 

I think that I am interested in reading more about the Jesuits and the application of classical education in Catholic education.  Ultimately, to me, Catholic education is more important than classical education.  I think my next reading stop is Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits.  I will also take suggestions! 

 

The question "what is classical education" is where you won't find consensus b/c there are so many interpretations of what it is.  Jackie is correct in that there are people that believe cyclical history studies is core to defining classical education and eschew Latin studies as necessary.    My own views on what are necessary have evolved over the yrs as I have witnessed the thinking processes in my own children.   I am now convinced that Latin is key.   Until my kids studied it and I witnessed the differences between my Latin students and non-Latin students, I didn't think so.

 

Anyway, if you are interested in Jesuit and Ignatian philosophies, there is an excellent article The 4 Hallmarks of Jesuit Pedagogy which you might like to read. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20100414225419/http://school.jhssac.org/faculty/cheneym/documents/Section_13__FOUR_HALLMARKS_OF_JESUIT_EDUCATION.pdf

 

If you do a google search using site:forums.welltrainedmind.com followed by the words Ignatian or Jesuit, you will pull up lots of old threads where this has been discussed.  

 

[MomintheMountains]

Don't give up.  Many of us are classical educators.  The problem is that not everyone on this forum is a classical educator.  Grammar stage learning might not be age specific but it is foundational.  It is the process of learning the technical jargon of a subject and learning its grammar (how it fits together).  You need to have this foundation before you can learn to look at something critically for problems and learn to talk about it systematically (logic).  And you need to be able to do that stage before you can argue or discuss something persuasively (rhetoric).  Obviously there is some back-and-forth here - you might or might not learn the harder terms of biological classification until later, for example.  

 

In your OP you asked about reading history aloud.  Yes, that would be a good way for your kids to learn the "grammar" of history - of the main people and events and a basic flow for how history fits together over time.  The same would be true for science if you read aloud or just did lots of hands on experiments and nature study.  They would be learning scientific terms and basic scientific laws even if they cannot yet articulate those laws.  I think it would be a rare child who did not learn some math or phonics/reading before age ten but I think it can definitely be through a more discovery approach.  

 

This sounds like classical education as I understand it based on what I've read so far.

[Corraleno]

Hmmmm.  Well, then I am barking up the wrong tree.  I came to this board to try and understand classical education better and to find out if my ideas about a more relaxed education in the early years could still fit in with a classical education.  But if we cannot even define the term, "classical education", then how can we come together and discuss it?  Reading interpretations of classical education, such as Sayers, and then looking at the application of classical ideas in modern curricula has caused me much confusion.  I see a great deal of contradiction.  In this thread the confusion and the contradictions continue.  

 

Yes, that's exactly my point — there is no universally agreed upon definition as to what constitutes a "classical education." If you arranged all of the various components that different writers and curriculum providers have deemed crucial to a "[neo]classical education," and then asked people to draw a line enclosing all the components that they personally include in their "classical" homeschool, you would have hundreds of different shapes, many of which would not even overlap.

 

For some people, a 4 yr history cycle using SOTW & GH Henty novels, R&S grammar, and a few workbooks on word roots and Mind Benders = "classical education." For others, studying Greek and Latin and reading Classical literature in depth = "classical education," even if they never did a single line of dictation or copy work. People are drawn to "classical education" for a wide variety of reasons — some people are primarily interested in the content (focus on Western Civilization); for some the main appeal lies in the aspects of mind training/character building; and some just see it as a recipe for a rigorous education and don't really care about Classical languages/history/culture. Obviously, all of those people will have very different definitions of "classical education."

 

Jackie