Does anyone else think Classical Conversations is neither?

[swellmomma]

OK so maybe CC could have chosen a better word than tutor since ya'll are getting technical and looking up definitions.

CC doesn't want to take away the parents role as teacher. Otherwise we might as well send them to school.

But I do want to be clear that I have only been referring to Foundations program. The Challenge program for 7th-12th is a bit of a different animal and there is more teaching going on there but it is only one day a week. The parent is "on deck" for the rest. 

 

I get that the teacher over all is mom, obviously. But to say the tutor isn't teaching, or isn't expected to be teaching for that 1 day a week is stupid imo.  My kids take online lit classes, online latin etc.  They have a tutor for each class.  For that 90 minute class they are in that tutor is teaching them, guiding the conversation(classes are based on socratic discussion), and assigning homework for the next class.  So while yes ultimately I am the teacher, I sure as heck would not be paying for a class if the tutor merely sat there being entertaining and didn't actually teach the subject.  That's what I am paying for in the first place, to have that subject taught by a knowledgable person.

 

CC had a booth set up last year at homeschool conference, I briefly looked at and and entered a draw, though I told the person right out that we were not interested.  She phoned me about a week later, I repeated we were not interested, the closest one is 2 hours away and would only be for the younger 2, if I wanted a level for the older 2 I would have to drive 5 hours each way.  I explained this, thought that was the end of it.  Nope, I was contacted 3 more times before I asked the woman how stupid she was and asked if she was the one teaching geography because I had had enough.  Seriously who in their right mind would spend that kind of money and then drive 4-10 hours 1 day every week to attend the program, particularily one taught by regular moms...oh wait they are not actually teaching...

[swellmomma]

nm 

 

Edited February 16, 2014 by Moderator
You can disagree without the name-calling.

[SarahW]

nm 

 

Edited February 16, 2014 by Moderator
That's a derail...

[Literary Mom]

 

I think your experience has less to do with CC and more to do with your particular community. I also am rather skeptical that it's all roses, like you describe, because I felt that way for the first years with our homeschool group, and then, as I alluded to in an earlier comment, the honeymoon wore off...which is only natural with any group of people, and even moreso with the independent minded women who are homeschooling mothers. But that takes me back to my first post in which I questioned whether CC moms were applying those critical thinking skills...when there is nothing to have conflict over (because it's all set in stone by the corporation), it's much easier to keep the peace.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Moderator
References to derail topic removed, useful observation left.

[Farrar]

nm 

 

Edited February 16, 2014 by Moderator
Please stay on target!

[*lifeoftheparty*]

nm 

 

Edited February 16, 2014 by Moderator
Sheesh. Let it go.

[Angie in VA]

The CC in our county is not really thriving, nor is the one in the county next to us, who had 4 Challenges two years ago and none this year... But each year they hang on because of new people entering, even though this county has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation

 

I think the draw of for many people around here is this - a simple, almost desperate, desire for community and support

 

Is it any wonder that people are interested?

Georgia

Interesting. I know NC is a big state, but because CC started there, and to my knowledge is still headquartered there, I thought every county and city in NC would be overflowing with CC groups.

[Papillon Mom]

Wow! My experience has been identical to the op! I was hopeful that the experience would prove worth the time and money. It hasn't. We'll finish the year but no way will I do it again. I could do everything on our own, in a fraction of the time. If you like the idea of it, I recommend buying the curriculum and doing it at home. Maybe even just start with listening to the history timeline song on youtube everyday. The memoria press curriculum we use has plenty of memory work. This is overkill.

[WishboneDawn]

No, because as I just clarified- it is *not* not being able to afford CC that (in my opinion/mind) riff-raff- it is the character and behavior of the people that I think are riff-raff.

 

Any mom willing to put forth the effort to be a tutor does not fall under riff-raff in my book.

 

Again, I am not saying that *just because* someone can't afford CC (or uses public transportation) that they are riff-raff.

 

I am saying that the people that I want to stay away from, what I consider riff-raff, have these things in common- they would never pony up the cash, nor the effort, to participate in CC- and I enjoy that aspect of it.

 

In my 4 years of CC- I have never seen nor heard of the antics that I talked about in our CC community. Everyone participates, everyone contributes... There is no drama, no gossip, no major problems- and women that are extremely intelligent and are very committed to the (top-notch) education of their children. We have conversations about politics, religion, literature, current events, etc. and they are always respectful, even when not everyone has the same opinion.

 

When my moms sign up for a field trip- they keep their word, and show up. If they need to cancel- they do it as soon as possible.

 

Starting CC was a breath of fresh air for us. I am so glad that I found it, and, that our community is run so well.

Okay, I actually think that is a good reason for higher prices and a fair point. It likely wouldn't convince me but I can see that bring an excellent reason for many homeschoolers.

[angelmama1209]

i've only read the first page, but thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU to those who mentioned memorization without context. aside from the price, this is my biggest beef with cc. i have many friends who do it and keep recommending that i do, but i just can't get past the plain memorization. it's like people who brag that their 1 or 2 year old knows the alphabet. sure, they can sing the song, but it doesn't MEAN anything. they can't identify the letters, they don't know the sounds, singing the song will not aid their reading in any way. so so what? for those it works for, more power to you. seriously, no judgement here. it's just not for me (or my bank account). it's just nice to finally know i'm not the only one and hear that others share my thoughts/views/concerns with the memorization. so far i'm finding the conversation interesting and hoping to learn more about it so i can maybe understand the appeal.

[SarahW]

Okay, I actually think that is a good reason for higher prices and a fair point. It likely wouldn't convince me but I can see that bring an excellent reason for many homeschoolers.

 

 

Yes, but for me, the "be committed" price point would be a TENTH of the CC asking price.

 

Oh, but I could always be a tutor.... Yeah, NO THANKS.

 

 

Besides the academic issues I mentioned in my PP, there were two "social issues" that I was uncomfortable with.

 

1) The assumption that you were Reformed, or at least very Calvinist-leaning.

 

2) The assumption that you were solidly upper-middle-class, if not higher. (Sorry moderator)

 

 

So, yes, poor little me could be a tutor (if I didn't have major academic and theological disagreements, as well as nursing a baby). But I'm not interested in whoring myself out just so I could pretend to fit in.

[angelmama1209]

"The whole-to-parts learners are the "big picture" people; they need to see the big picture of where they're going in order to have a place in their memory to put what they are learning. These are often the people who see CC as a random collection of disjointed facts that have no point. CC often doesn't work well for them unless the mom is able to provide the big picture. These are the ones who, if they are able use CC at all, are using it as their spine and providing the necessary context at home.

On the other hand the parts-to-whole learners are often overwhelmed if they are given the big picture first, but they can take the little bits of information that seem random to the whole-to-parts learners and over time assemble them into the big picture. These learners are often the ones that can just do CC as a memory work supplement while completing other curricula that may or may not tie in directly. For these learners the pegs that CC creates really help them build the framework in their minds for the rest of the information they will need to store."

 

this has been the most helpful thing i've read so far. thank you.

 

 

[kirstenhill]

Yes, but for me, the "be committed" price point would be a TENTH of the CC asking price.

 

 

I was thinking this too! I am not sure why I have read this whole thread as CC is never something I have been interested in.  (Despite what "everyone" says about young kids being good at memorization, my DD definitely does not fit this generalization -- I think it took consistent work the whole year in Kindergarten for my DD just to learn her address and phone number...the phone number stuck but to this day she has to "look up" her own address to address an envelope!  CC memorization would never fly for her).  I guess I love being a voyeur on a good discussion.  :lol:

 

Anyhow, I was a part of a very informal, nearly free ($25/yr) co-op when DD was in Pre-K and K.  Over the two years, more and more families dropped out at various random points through the year (especially the 2nd year).  Since it was just an informal group of people who were already friends/acquaintances, it was easy for the most outspoken moms to set policy and direction for the group.

 

We're now in a group that costs $180/yr per kid (ok, not quite 10% of the cost of CC, but still cheaper), and I have seen awesome commitment from the other moms in the group and everyone being willing to fairly follow the rules/policies set by the co-op's board.  

[minuway]

I would be pretty irritated by the kind of co-op parents lifeoftheparty describes, absolutely. Sounds totally lame. But CC isn't a practical answer to the homeschooling community's need for co-op reform though - its way too academically specific and expensive. Like others have mentioned, if CC really wanted to be ministry that helped homeschoolers form community, it would look very different - consider Heidi St. John's ministry with this: Firmly Planted.

 

Personally I'd rather go to a park day group than a co-op, anyway - just something where my kids can run around making friends and I can chat with other nice people at a time that won't interfere with our schoolwork.

[lea_lpz]

I just wish their were more options for co-ops in my area. I don't have anything against CC having never done it but based on the info meeting I decided it wasn't what I was looking for with my 4 & 6 year old in a co-op. A lot of moms I know from various facets, like park day, our homeschool group, and AHG do CC, and from what I am seeing, I am happy with my choice. I would like to see a fun co-op for younger kids where we just do messy arts and crafts, hands on science, and mature journaling, but a lot of parents just don't seem all that interested I'm doing an old fashioned parent organized co-op and I think that's what makes CC appealing to families. I'd really love to do an AG co-op next year but think I would not likely find enough interest.

 

As far as co-ops go with the ages I have I am not interested in CC because I want to do academics at home my way and with CC if you want to add content at home you need to do all the planning and leg work. It's promoted as being memory work at the foundations level you can do for 15 min. a day and then set aside to do your own curriculum choice but from what I see every one ends up getting burned out with juggling CC and their original curriculum choices and will end up dropping the original curriculum to give content for CC.

 

I am really happy with my curriculum, don't want to lose a day studying unrelated content, and am just not that desperate. As far as being a new homeschool mom, I am just not that desperate for community nor have I ever bought into it being the only way to do classical education. In fact I've heard moms say multiple times, "you present the info, throw it out there and see if it sticks, and that is the classical way," multiple times when being impressed with what what their foundation kids learn. I do not think they understand classical Ed at all with those kind of statements. Yes, children in the grammar stage are excellent at memorizing, but the model is not to them to memorize with neither content or any practical application for their age but to capitalize on their ability to memorize and parrot facts of value for their age, such as age appropriate poems, scripture, stories, multiplication facts, yes history facts but only those that would be appropriate and they could explain at their age.

 

Oh and doing a history cycle in three years?!? I really don't see why a child would need to go through the history cycle 4-5 x. How does that even align with the classical model of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic stages each having covered a history cycle with the content becoming more in depth and promoting higher thought with each stage? Are you adding 2 more stages!?!

 

The 27 reasons lists was very helpful in my opinion at explaining why not to do CC. I am really glad I didn't shell out that much $ to do CC. I can buy my entire years curriculum for what it would cost to do CC with 2 kids and have $ to spare quite frankly. And I do lean more Charlotte Mason, lol....

[...................]

nm 

 

Edited February 18, 2014 by Moderator
Let it go, please.

[Literary Mom]

Toward the beginning of this thread, I mentioned my idea for "gameschool", a co-op based on board games. Well, I've decided that when CC ends in early April, I'm going to use our "extra" day for hands-on activities (since my focus tends more toward book learning, hence the moniker)...so we will do some combination of the following:  play a game, do a project (arts/crafts, cooking, science experiment, life skill, etc.), go outside for sports or nature study, or go on a field trip. It will be sort of like "classical education interrupted" or "unschool day" or "Charlotte Mason lite." If it goes well over those three months, then in the fall (or maybe even during our test run), we will invite others to join us, but on a week to week basis (no yearlong commitment).

 

Not sure why I'm posting this here except to say that four years of doing co-ops (and five years of homeschooling) has finally led me to recognizing what may be the best way to break up / complement our studies, and engage in the learning process with others. Looking forward to a new adventure...  (if anyone has done anything like this, I'd love to hear your experience)

[minuway]

Literary Mom, This is *kind of* what I do with a friend's family right now - we meet one day a week at the park in the afternoon, one of us brings stuff for a project - usually art, but sometimes science or history, or sometimes we just have the kids bring their nature journals (we're both more Charlotte Mason types). We've been slowing trying to pull some other people into it with us, but not had much luck so far, I think partly because we kind of like it cozy. But we know that our kids would appreciate more kids to interact with. I think keeping it low key is really a good thing. Most of us do not need one more high stress thing to add to our existence!

 

ETA We've also hosted Brave Writer-esque poetry tea times where the kids have read or recited poems, or shared their own compositions, drank cocoa or tea, and eaten generally too much sugar and eventually gotten sent outside while giddily reciting Emily Dickinson way too loud for polite company. I have no idea what my neighbors must think of us.  :huh:

 

[lea_lpz]

See I totally want a Friday co-op as that's are light day to do what we'd normally be doing Friday. I am doing Portraits of American Girlhood next year and would live to do an AG book club where we discussed the weeks book, previewed next weeks book, did a bit of geography and then got into the fun stuff - doing a craft from the time period, having a girl bring in a snack or meal from the time period and share, practice a play or skit, and then break for lunch and do a nature journaling / walk for those interested or just roll into a park day. I want a fun social experience were in a co-op setting we are doing the hands on fun stuff that drew me to homeschooling in the first place. For my kids ages I think doing the traditional academic subjects in a group is more of a distraction. And I am more CM so not planning to introduce former grammar or Latin for a bit. We're doing conversational Spanish but won't likely intro. Latin until 5th or 6th grade or do much more than informal Spanish until then either

[RootAnn]

I just got back from an information meeting about starting a CC in an area about 30 minutes from where I live. I admit that I didn't go because I was interested in CC, but because there are three times as many (registered) homeschoolers in that county as in mine and I only know about a fourth of them. I was hoping to meet several new faces. (There were four other families there and I knew all but one.  :mellow: )

 

The rep, while clearly not overly knowledgeable about neo-Classical homeschooling, was clear on the parents-are-teachers, tutors-are-just-introducing-the-material, and this-is-not-a-drop-off-program. She didn't get into how much you need to cover at home at all. She flubbed up some things (like referring to the book Johnny Tremain when she meant to refer to Carry On Mr Bowditch) and didn't mention how much tuition was at the Challenge level (although her tuition sheet was there & she offered a copy to anyone who wanted it when I peeked at it). Overall, I thought her presentation was fair and as gushy as you would expect from someone in the position of an area manager. 

 

There is a new age rule coming this fall. Kids will have to be a certain age by a certain date cut-off to be part of the Challenge levels - something about the ability to take part in the social/emotional discussions at the upper levels. They want them to be a certain minimum age in Challenge III & IV, so they just backed into the rest of the Challenge levels so parents wouldn't get to those levels & find their kids couldn't take part in some of the extra stuff (some agreement with a college for college credit but you have to be 16).

 

She clearly hadn't met some of The Hive kids when she said that the younger kids (K/1st) couldn't understand the concept of an 'emperor' (in reference to the Charlemagne history sentence).  :lol:

[dauphin]

"The whole-to-parts learners are the "big picture" people; they need to see the big picture of where they're going in order to have a place in their memory to put what they are learning. These are often the people who see CC as a random collection of disjointed facts that have no point. CC often doesn't work well for them unless the mom is able to provide the big picture. These are the ones who, if they are able use CC at all, are using it as their spine and providing the necessary context at home.

 

On the other hand the parts-to-whole learners are often overwhelmed if they are given the big picture first, but they can take the little bits of information that seem random to the whole-to-parts learners and over time assemble them into the big picture. These learners are often the ones that can just do CC as a memory work supplement while completing other curricula that may or may not tie in directly. For these learners the pegs that CC creates really help them build the framework in their minds for the rest of the information they will need to store."

 

this has been the most helpful thing i've read so far. thank you.

 

WSS.

 

I always find it interesting when someone can offer a (possible) reason why some people find one program/method/curriculum a better fit than others (e.g., mastery vs. spiral in math programs). I think somewhere else in the thread someone mentioned how CC might be more appealing to STEM-y people (*raises hand*), especially considering that that is heavily in the background of the authors....Perhaps that explains how this INFP doesn't find it disturbing at all while others with similar MB types do (although I don't really know MB that well, and perhaps it's also due to my touch of the "T" (vs F)). Fascinating!!!

 

I've kind of wondered if CM is kind of the same way (appeals more to non-STEM people, and just...doesn't quite.....feel/fit right for a STEM-y person)....

 

About the age cutoffs. Ugh, major bone of contention for me right now. If I wanted people that balked at grade acceleration, I'd go back to P.S. Lack of flexibility in academic placement is the ONLY reason we started homeschooling after we exhausted all of our other options in the area (public, private Montessori, private classical Christian). It's a whole different ball of wax now, I'm all in...but I will leave CC over it if I have to, despite how much I love it.

 

p.s., what are the Hive kids?

[RootAnn]

About the age cutoffs. Ugh, major bone of contention for me right now. If I wanted people that balked at grade acceleration, I'd go back to P.S. Lack of flexibility in academic placement is the ONLY reason we started homeschooling after we exhausted all of our other options in the area (public, private Montessori, private classical Christian). It's a whole different ball of wax now, I'm all in...but I will leave CC over it if I have to, despite how much I love it.

 

I had this same thought. I thought it was weird that there was some public-school bashing going on at the meeting (by the area manager person) as part of the "Classical Education is the best" pushing and then have her mention the new age cut-off requirement. But, overall, she seemed to buy into the idea that for all kids that age determines maturity & academic ability.  :confused1: 

 

p.s., what are the Hive kids?

 

These forums (WTM) are commonly referred to as The Hive (or The Hive Mind). So, Hive kids would be the kids of people who are on here. While we have plenty of kids (like mine) who are 'all over the board' in terms of academic ability, you notice a trend towards the gifted or accelerated side from some of the parents who post. (Just take a look at the 6th grade 'what are you doing next year' thread and see how many are going to be doing Pre-Algebra or Algebra.) There is also a good slew of us who have kids that are 'challenged' (special needs, 2E, have a learning disability, or just 'behind' in something).

 

While my kids are pretty solidly average, my ds#1 would blow her away with his understanding of history topics. (His recall wouldn't surprise her since she's used to seeing memorization with CC. His ability to explain history topics, apparently, would. And I don't think he is all that unusual compared to other kids out there. I just think she underestimates the ability of younger kids to grasp concepts.)

[momacacia]

There is a new age rule coming this fall. Kids will have to be a certain age by a certain date cut-off to be part of the Challenge levels - something about the ability to take part in the social/emotional discussions at the upper levels. They want them to be a certain minimum age in Challenge III & IV, so they just backed into the rest of the Challenge levels so parents wouldn't get to those levels & find their kids couldn't take part in some of the extra stuff (some agreement with a college for college credit but you have to be 16).

This is where we will eventually leave CC if we even go back after taking off next year. Both my girls are fall babies and miss cut offs. My oldest is the youngest in her class and all the sweet girlfriends ( except maybe one) in her class will go to challenge before she can. That will be a fun time! :-/

 

She is particularly socio-emotionally mature and has excellent logic abilities. Younger dd does too but in a different way---she's our philosopher. Lol. But I'm hoping she won't be the youngest if we return to CC but I'm already seeing that in abecedarians.

[CaffeineDiary]

Man, reading through this thread is an education.  Question for those of you who've done this, is there an element of parents "selling" new parents on CC? Are there bonuses or rewards for doing so?  Because some of the other things described in this thread totally has a whiff of Amway-like multi-level marketing schemes about it.

[8filltheheart]

Man, reading through this thread is an education. Question for those of you who've done this, is there an element of parents "selling" new parents on CC? Are there bonuses or rewards for doing so? Because some of the other things described in this thread totally has a whiff of Amway-like multi-level marketing schemes about it.

That is so funny, bc that is exactly what I wondered. It reminded me of the Amway push.

[Omma]

I can't speak for others, but I was sharing here in order to give a reason for the hope I now have that we can do this.... ie. this thing called homeschooling, particularly as our family is embracing middle school and the teen years.  I am encouraged by the progress I am seeing in my ds and maybe others can be encouraged that it might work for them, too, if they are considering the challenge program.  I like hearing of the testimonials of others as to what is working and what isn't, and why.  I like knowing what my options are, and Classical Conversations is just one option out of many...use what works for your family!

[Penelope]

At the risk of seeming like I am bashing CC, since I have posted in this thread more than once, I will say that for me, my problems with it have nothing to do with STEM orientation or the relationship of parts to whole.

 

In fact, the science and math part of foundations was the most surprising to me, given that the creators of the program are engineers. Why, why, why would I want to have a five year old memorizing the laws of arithmetic, the Pythagorean theorem, the quadratic formula, etc. There is no way to even teach these things in context at these ages, so it is pure memorization without conceptual understanding. The same could be said, IMO, for many of the science "facts," some of which are confusing and incomplete. I actually think the history sentences and the timeline with dates are the more positive parts of the program, because at least I could give my children exposure to those at home, learning along with the progression.

[sltress]

Man, reading through this thread is an education.  Question for those of you who've done this, is there an element of parents "selling" new parents on CC? Are there bonuses or rewards for doing so?  Because some of the other things described in this thread totally has a whiff of Amway-like multi-level marketing schemes about it.

 

No. It is not a multi marketing thing. Not even close. The parents that participate are excited about it and share it with others on their own. That’s all. There are no kickbacks or incentives. Obviously Directors who are starting/running a CC group want families to participate but it isn’t supposed to get too big (I can’t remember the recommended # of kids per group) and so if there are waiting lists (which there are) they encourage others to start a new group to accommodate more people.

[bethben]

Man, reading through this thread is an education.  Question for those of you who've done this, is there an element of parents "selling" new parents on CC? Are there bonuses or rewards for doing so?  Because some of the other things described in this thread totally has a whiff of Amway-like multi-level marketing schemes about it.

 

Yes, when I was a director a couple of years ago, they were changing things up with area leaders (I'm not sure what they're called).  They got paid based on new enrollment and new groups opening up.  I'm not sure if they got paid if all their groups stayed open, but I know there was kickback for new groups.  The business is run with a ministry mentality in the lower leadership levels (i.e. I don't have to get paid as much because I'm doing it as a ministry to homeschool moms) with a profit mentality in the upper levels (i.e. how can we make money in this venture).  Right or wrong, it's what is happening.

 

Beth

[kateingr]

Regarding the question about finances, there are no "referral fees" or discounts or anything like that for families that recommend the program to new families. But, the director does receive 40% of the tuition paid to the campus, so this is of course an incentive for the director to enroll more families. (The other 60% is split among the tutors. There is also an additional "registration fee" that goes directly to CC corporate, as well as a supplies and facility fee.)

[NASDAQ]

Cc is a high-investment group. People who do it make sacrifices in time, energy, and money. It's typical that the higher the investment, the more strongly people will feel about it and the more they will defend it.

[Forgiven]

I love this thread. Seriously, I wanted to join CC. I've looked into it three years in a row, and each time I've been put off for different reasons. There's something not right about all of this, and many have expressed the exact conclusions I have come to. I guess my situation is unique though because I work full time from home for set hours and would not be able to attend with my kids. I've been told to send a grandparent with them or a friend, or a baby sitter. LOL It was these comments that got me wondering why the parent would need to be there at all if I could substitute myself with a baby sitter. 

 

The amount of money is atrocious for a "co-op". I expect a co-op to be cheaper on the account that we join together and all share in the education of the group. That is what a co-op is. Co-operative. But the bizarre idea of paying a lot of money for a "tutor" to "teach" (yes, a tutor is a teacher, even if you tutors refuse to admit it) my kids that I also have to be present for, is too much to swallow. Especially since I've been told that the tutor is supposed to help teach the parent to teach the kids, yet I'm encouraged to hire a baby sitter to be with my kids since I can't be present. It's maddening to think of the logic. If it's so important -- thousands of dollars important since I have three kids -- for me to be there, why would it be okay for a babysitter, whom I'd also have to pay, to stand in my place. 

 

I have talked to many people about CC because I was originally interested, but it started getting weird. People were trying to get me to join one group further away, bad mouthing the one that was closer to me. The people from the one that was closer to me scared me away because I went to them for testing last year and they suffocated me with information, making me feel horribly uncomfortable, as if I was a number, not a person. The also told me that there's nothing to buy other than the Foundations guide, but others gave me a list of things I'd have to buy in addition to the high cost of me sitting around while a non-teacher doesn't teach my kids.

 

One of my friends recently joined CC and so I've talked to her about it. She sounds like she just joined a cult. I know that's going to sound offensive, but man, she really does sound strange. It's scary. Her entire attitude has changed. She's turned into a elitist almost over night.

 

The more and more I learn, the more and more CC baffles me. I cannot get over the cost to have my kids not taught by a non-teacher. Seriously. If I need a social outlet for my kids, I'd find something much cheaper. Oh wait, I already pay a lot less for activities that provide a social outlet. ;)

 

Thank you to the original poster for this. How horrible that you were reported and have been receiving hate mail. I found your list of reasons quite interesting and on-the-money for what I've learned about CC on my own.

 

In the end, someone is getting rich off of CC, and I'm not going to shell out those horrible costs to sit and watch my child not be taught by someone just like me.

 

 

[thegeyser]

I do just want to be clear that I never received hate mail - just emotionally charged messages that did lead to more conversational messages. I edited that post to rein in the hyperbole. No one was very happy with what I'd said, but it would not qualify at all as hate mail.

[Mrs Twain]

How interesting of a discussion.  Just for the record, I was only trying to explain why the acquaintances were offended by the 27 reasons. It sounded to me like the author was surprised that people she knows personally and with whom she attended CC felt hurt by what she wrote.  As for me, I don't mind what any of you write about CC.  It is a free country, and you are entitled to your opinions just like everyone else. 

 

However, I do regret that I had listened to the naysayers because they influenced me to have a very negative opinion of CC a few years ago.  Last year somehow it dawned on me that CC was exactly what I was looking for.  Foundations has been a great fit for us, though I wished we had joined a year earlier.  We don't plan to continue in Challenge because that is not a good fit for us, but I am thankful for the people who run CC because it has benefitted our family immensely.

 

On another subject, I have been wondering why there is such a visceral reaction to CC, even among people who have never attended one.  I can think of three reasons.

 

First, some people who have participated in CC feel ripped off.  It either cost them more than there were expecting, or they didn't feel the product was worth the cost.  The way to remedy that (if you are considering CC) is to do adequate research beforehand.  You and your children can attend CC to try it out for free.  There are usually multiple open houses available for you to visit.  At the open house you will see and experience exactly what everyone does each week.  You can talk to the moms to ask them how much they spent and what they considered necessary to buy.  In addition, I went to a convention and looked at all of the CC curricula.  I made a plan about exactly how I would teach the CC content and what I would need to buy, calculating the costs before I signed up.  As for additional materials costs besides the Foundations Guide and tin whistle, all you might actually want in addition would be a set of flashcards, a $6 membership to CC Connected website for the month of August, and a $6 membership to CC Connected for the month of December.  You can download all of the songs, maps, and whatever else you like from the website during those months. 

 

Second, some people are upset that they didn't get the results they were expecting from their time in CC.  Again, I think this could be remedied by doing more research.  If you are not interested in the content CC covers, then the program is not worth it for you.  If you don't want to make time to spend teaching your kids the content, then CC is probably not the place for you either.  I know of families whose kids show up week after week but haven't learned any of the memory work.  They are also the ones who haven't prepared for their weekly presentations.  I would imagine that these are the families who will complain about how much they spent on CC and that their children didn't get anything out of it.  Or else some families may actually spend the time learning the memory songs but no time teaching the context.  IMO the answer to this problem is to plan time outside of CC to learn and practice the material.  The summer before we joined CC, I made up a schedule including time one afternoon for me to teach the context of the material.  The result was that we started math, English, history, and several other subjects one month early in August so that we could take off 24 Fridays for CC and to cover the background material.

 

Third, some people are offended by the real or perceived arrogance of CC'ers.  I think this is a major reason why there is such a great amount of hate toward CC, particularly by people who have never joined it or even attended one.  In truth, CC does attract the homeschool academic snobs.  I actually like those people, though, since I am quite a bit like that myself.  CC is a place where you can meet these types of extremely rigorous and motivated homeschoolers.  (In contrast, most of the folks I have met at homeschool park day or homeschool P.E. class are the Better Late than Early types.)   Now whether you are extremely rigorous or extremely relaxed or anywhere in between, what does it matter what CC people say?  You don't care about what public school people say, do you?  Why are you so offended by CC people?  Just do what you think is right for you and your situation and don't worry about anyone else's opinions.

 

Lastly, there are a wide variety of fantastic accusations--CC is a cult, sinister motives of directors and the central organization, etc.--which I suspect are related to #3 above.  Now I am not denying that there may be some bad apples in CC just like in most large organizations, but I have not encountered any yet.  Won't dh be surprised that we have joined a cult, though, especially since he has participated in it himself.  Ha ha!

 

 

[pehp]

I haven't had time to read all the responses (i did scroll through the ones directly above this, and of course read the OP).  Here's my take on CC, which we are doing for the second year in a row (we are doing Foundations, for my 6 year old).

 

A lot depends on expectation.  I'm SURE a lot depends on the local community (ours is very good--I've never experienced ANY pushiness/weirdness about CC at all)(definitely not Amway-esque from what I know, but maybe I don't know enough!).

 

My own perspective is that it has been well worth our money and time in our particular circumstances.  My son is on the autism spectrum--very high-functioning. Intelligent, but lots of social anxiety. We needed to give him some time with his peers/age-mates, but wanted to do it in a structured, predictable setting.  I didn't see any co-ops in our area that really met this need for us, plus I didn't want to have any responsibility for teaching at a co-op. I *really* appreciate that there's a weekly public speaking/presentation element to CC which is so, so good for my socially anxious little guy--he's really learning to flourish.  He also enjoys the 'fact recitation' aspect of CC.  He gets gentle pacing through a structured day with lunch and half an hour of 'freeplay' at the end--this is just right for his needs at this point in his life. He gets to interact with a 'teacher' who is not his mother.  

 

Academically I am not sold on CC.  I have learned some interesting facts (that's fun--when I learn new things!), but I don't consider it essential to a good education.  We don't use CC as our spine or anything like that--it is purely supplemental, something we do 'for fun', and we listen to CDs in the car to review memory work but that's IT.  I love the timeline cards, but we really don't use them. I'm thinking they'll actually be cool to own and look at in, say, 6 years. To me it is an enjoyable morning where we learn some catchy songs, do a science demonstration or two (I wouldn't call them "experiments" so much ;)), practice a little public speaking and spend time with peers. I anticipate that we will continue Foundations until 5th grade and then will be ready to move on to bigger and better things.  

 

 It's about $19/week for us, and to me at this stage of my son's educational journey, that's worthwhile.

 

ETA: I also keep my 3 year old with me in the class and don't pay for her childcare in the nursery.  This works well for us b/c she's a mama's girl, and she enjoys 'tagging along'!

[T'smom]

I've got to respond to the "academic snob" idea. The people in our CC are NOT what I would consider rigorous educators. I don't know how many times I have heard "well, at least they are learning this one thing." (Relating to a science fact or history sentence) I have also heard several people say that they just love that there are science projects and art projects and how great it is that they don't have to do those at home. That does not say "academic snob" to me.

 

I can see the appeal of CC when you have a bunch of kids, mostly 4th grade+ with littles along for the ride. But I am not impressed with the science "projects" or even really the art projects. Our group is always being rushed/pushed through them to get to the next thing. And at my kids' age, I don't find the science to be developmentally appropriate.

 

I cannot bring myself to memorize the stuff out of context (unless I hate the context like the aforementioned atomic bomb and French aristocracy having their heads removed) but teaching the context takes more time than I an give it. Actually, just the memorizing takes more time than I want to give it. My 1st grader does NOT need to memorize the formula for the area of a triangle. That does NOT make for a rigorous education.

 

I don't hate CC. I do kindof feel ripped off I guess. At the meetings they only showed the one or two awesome projects. It was a new community, so there was no chance of an open house. I DO enjoy the people. Everyone is very welcoming and kind and I really don't think you could ask for a better group. But the schedule is so packed to the gills that there isn't a lot of time to chat. The presentations have helped my son grow a LOT. But, overall, it's not a good use of our time. Maybe we will go back when he is a few years older.

[8filltheheart]

Reading Mrs. Twain's enjoyment of CC has made some things click for me. She has posted multiple times that she really thinks the Core Knowledge/Willingham approaches are the ones that provide the best educational foundation. Being attracted to CC makes sense bc her post made me realize that a strong correlation/model probably exists there.(???)

 

It is also why CC doesn't appeal to me at all bc those are not educational models I wish to replicate in any way.

 

Maybe?? (not positive, but at least it clarified a few things in my mind.)

[Guest Ordoamoris]

There may be many great reasons to join or not to join a CC group. What I want to address here is whether CC is classical?  This has been a beef with me since reading Leigh Bortins book Echoes in Celebration. It became clear to me reading that book that while Leigh may have interesting opinions about education they do NOT fall under the category of classical.  Sadly, modern homeschooling has gotten lost in the Dorothy Sayers essay on education in ways in which Dorothy would have be appalled. We have turned a couple of sentences she wrote about poll parrots into whole industries, and not just the one we know as CC.

 

There are many definitions of what it means to educate classically out there and we could spend the next thousand years arguing over them, but there is one key thing we do know and that is that a classical education is never utilitarian. By turning classical education into an 'ages and stages' model we have turned it on its head and lost the thing.

 

Two books have recently been published which go a long way towards fixing this problem. In Stratford Caldecott's excellent book Beauty in the Word he moves away from calling the first stage of the trivium the grammar stage. He calls it, instead, the stage of remembering. This is a huge leap in the right direction for a movement that has been degraded by the idea of the grammar stage as being a time of vast memorization of somewhat useless knowledge. Think about it. The grammar stage is for remembering. That means a time of tethering our children to the past, to what we know and love. The grammar stage is not for making up lost time in memorizing knowledge. It is a time for stories and poems and scripture and music. It is a time to remember who we are and why we are. It is a foundation based not on utility but beauty.  Utility is the anti-Christ of education.

 

Classical Academic Press has also released a little booklet called The Liberal Arts Tradition which describes the grammar stage of the trivium as the music stage. I think that is a huge leap forward in thinking also.

 

CC is a model of education which might meet the needs of many families. I do not like to spend my time berating it unless I find myself talking to a mom who is being unduly pressured to join against her better judgement, but reading Echoes of Celebration and looking over the CC program,  l do not see any way it could be defined as classical. I would be much happier if it marketed itself under a different label.

[KeriJ]

There may be many great reasons to join or not to join a CC group. What I want to address here is whether CC is classical?  This has been a beef with me since reading Leigh Bortins book Echoes in Celebration. It became clear to me reading that book that while Leigh may have interesting opinions about education they do fall under the category of classical.  Sadly, modern homeschooling has gotten lost in Dorothy Sayers essay on education in ways in which Dorothy would have be appalled. We have turned a couple of sentences she wrote about poll parrots into whole industries, and not just the one we know as CC.

 

There are many definitions of what it means to educate classically out there and we could spend the next thousand years arguing over them, but there is one key thing we do know and that is that a classical education is never utilitarian. By turning classical education into an 'ages and stages' model we have turned it on its head and lost the thing.

 

Two books have recently been published which go a long way towards fixing this problem. In Stratford Caldecott's excellent book Beauty in the Word he moves away from calling the first stage of the trivium the grammar stage. He calls it, instead, the stage of remembering. This is a huge leap in the right direction for a movement that has been degraded by the idea of the grammar stage as being a time of vast memorization of somewhat useless knowledge. Think about it. The grammar stage is for remembering. That means a time of tethering our children to the past, to what we know and love. The grammar stage is not for making up lost time in memorizing knowledge. It is a time for stories and poems and scripture and music. It is a time to remember who we are and why we are. It is a foundation based not on utility but beauty.  Utility is the anti-Christ of education.

 

Classical Academic Press has also released a little booklet called The Liberal Arts Tradition which describes the grammar stage of the trivium as the music stage. I think that is a huge leap forward in thinking also.

 

CC is a model of education which might meet the needs of many families. I do not like to spend my time berating it unless I find myself talking to a mom who is beign unduly pressured to join against her better judgement, but reading Echoes of Celebration and looking over the CC program,  l do not see any way it could be defined as classical. I would be much happier if it marketed itself under a different label.

 So glad to see you here. :)  (I promise I'm not an internet stalker :)  just a faithful reader of your blog who was tickled to realize I lived near you)

[KeriJ]

I've got to respond to the "academic snob" idea. The people in our CC are NOT what I would consider rigorous educators. I don't know how many times I have heard "well, at least they are learning this one thing." (Relating to a science fact or history sentence) I have also heard several people say that they just love that there are science projects and art projects and how great it is that they don't have to do those at home. That does not say "academic snob" to me.

 

I can see the appeal of CC when you have a bunch of kids, mostly 4th grade+ with littles along for the ride. But I am not impressed with the science "projects" or even really the art projects. Our group is always being rushed/pushed through them to get to the next thing. And at my kids' age, I don't find the science to be developmentally appropriate.

 

I cannot bring myself to memorize the stuff out of context (unless I hate the context like the aforementioned atomic bomb and French aristocracy having their heads removed) but teaching the context takes more time than I an give it. Actually, just the memorizing takes more time than I want to give it. My 1st grader does NOT need to memorize the formula for the area of a triangle. That does NOT make for a rigorous education.

 

I don't hate CC. I do kindof feel ripped off I guess. At the meetings they only showed the one or two awesome projects. It was a new community, so there was no chance of an open house. I DO enjoy the people. Everyone is very welcoming and kind and I really don't think you could ask for a better group. But the schedule is so packed to the gills that there isn't a lot of time to chat. The presentations have helped my son grow a LOT. But, overall, it's not a good use of our time. Maybe we will go back when he is a few years older.

 

This is pretty much how I felt the one year we were part of CC.  This describes our group really well and my opinion of how it went for us.  I agree that the presentations were really beneficial to us!  But that was about it.  It was the year I had a newborn, so it was also helpful in terms of providing them some structure during a very chaotic time at home.  But it just wasn't how I wanted to spend our time in the long term, and didn't fit the educational philosophy that I have.  (but I will repeat, we loved the people in our group!!  they were great!)

[Penelope]

I don't see intellectual snobbery at all. The people I have met who are or have been involved are lovely people.

It's okay that they like it, or even love it, and I don't. That isn't it at all.

 

I think it's okay to criticize a program, even vigorously, without others taking it personally. I could go many places on the Internet and read about how horrible people think TWTM is. I use TWTM as one guide and inspiration, yet criticisms of it don't offend me in the least.

[LaughingCat]

Reading Mrs. Twain's enjoyment of CC has made some things click for me. She has posted multiple times that she really thinks the Core Knowledge/Willingham approaches are the ones that provide the best educational foundation. Being attracted to CC makes sense bc her post made me realize that a strong correlation/model probably exists there.(???)

 

It is also why CC doesn't appeal to me at all bc those are not educational models I wish to replicate in any way.

 

Maybe?? (not positive, but at least it clarified a few things in my mind.)

 

I've read Willingham's book and I'm not getting the connection with CC?  He is not all about memorization of facts.   In fact,he seems a proponent of 'stories' as the way to cement learning rather than rote facts.

[NASDAQ]

Core Knowledge doesn't present a bunch of out-of-context facts. It presents information in context, but stems from a belief that children can and should learn about things very foreign to their everyday lives. Like Egypt at age six.

[8filltheheart]

I've read Willingham's book and I'm not getting the connection with CC? He is not all about memorization of facts. In fact,he seems a proponent of 'stories' as the way to cement learning rather than rote facts.

Core Knowledge doesn't present a bunch of out-of-context facts. It presents information in context, but stems from a belief that children can and should learn about things very foreign to their everyday lives. Like Egypt at age six.

I honestly know nothing about Willingham other than what I have read in posts, so I guess I have misunderstood what he purports. He has often been linked in Core Knowledge conversations, so I linked them together.

 

Core Knowledge does focus on knowledge-based education with lots of fact memorization. I wasn't meaning out of context in reference to CK, but simply that knowledge as exemplified by facts is deemed important. The connection for me is that songs about facts might appeal to someone with those beliefs.

 

Eta.....this wasn't a comment about one program or the other but personalities that might find it appealing. But that may not make sense, but it just sort of clicked in my mind.

[NASDAQ]

There are very few philosophies that wouldn't assume that some factual body of knowledge is necessary. Core Knowledge sought to standardize the body of knowledge, but what is prescribed by it involves a smaller body of facts than, say, WTM.

[8filltheheart]

There are very few philosophies that wouldn't assume that some factual body of knowledge is necessary. Core Knowledge sought to standardize the body of knowledge, but what is prescribed by it involves a smaller body of facts than, say, WTM.

True to a certain degree but nothing about CK appeals to me at all. :). (But nothing about the WTM appeals to me in the younger yrs, either. So, just count me as weirdly out there and simply wondering out loud.) I am simply trying to understand. Like I said, I may be way off, but it seemed like connection to me.

[Mrs Twain]

I honestly know nothing about Willingham other than what I have read in posts, so I guess I have misunderstood what he purports. He has often been linked in Core Knowledge conversations, so I linked them together.

 

Core Knowledge does focus on knowledge-based education with lots of fact memorization. I wasn't meaning out of context in reference to CK, but simply that knowledge as exemplified by facts is deemed important. The connection for me is that songs about facts might appeal to someone with those beliefs.

 

Eta.....this wasn't a comment about one program or the other but personalities that might find it appealing. But that may not make sense, but it just sort of clicked in my mind.

 

The Knowledge Deficit (Hirsch) is an excellent book to read if you want to understand Core Knowledge.  Perhaps I can try to summarize, though it has been a while since I read it. 

 

A key aspect of becoming well educated is learning the assumed background knowledge of one's culture.  By assumed background knowledge I mean the knowledge that our culture assumes we know.  For a simple example, if you are reading a book or article and the author mentions George Washington and the cherry tree, it is *assumed* that you know the story and that it refers to GW's reputation for honesty.  The article will not be likely to mention a hatchet or honesty or any other facts to clue you in to the meaning of the analogy.  All Americans (at least well educated ones) are assumed to know the story and get the connotation.

 

Whenever "Hitler" is mentioned, you are *assumed* to know about Nazi Germany, WWII, the Holocaust, that Hitler is basically the epitome of evil, etc.  Now the reference will likely only say "Hitler" and not mention any of these other ideas.  The author assumes that all of the ideas linked to Hitler will automatically pop into your head, and hence they are the assumed background knowledge.

 

Another example is Zeus.  The ideas that are assumed to pop into your head are things like Ancient Greece, polytheism, Mount Olympus, and thunderbolts.  Another example is Robin Hood which is supposed to remind you of stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

 

If one doesn't know the assumed background knowledge of whatever he is reading or listening to, then he may not understand one or more points that the author is trying to make, or perhaps he will not understand any of the author's points.  For example, I have been reading various books by E. Nesbit to my kids.  Call me an ignorant American, but I didn't understand the references to Guy Fawkes.  I had to Google it to read about Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes Day, and British traditions surrounding the holiday.  Because I didn't know the *assumed background knowledge* of Britain in 1900, I didn't understand the references that the kids in the Nesbit stories kept making.  Once I understood the assumed background knowledge, I immediately understood all of the references and jokes. 

 

It is too much to summarize, but the research is very clear that knowing assumed background knowledge is vital for reading comprehension.  (Read Hirsch or Willingham if you want to know more.) 

 

Along those same lines, core/content knowledge is vital for critical thinking and analysis.  Willingham explains the neuroscience behind this well.  Our brains have a very small working knowledge.  The more that we can automate, the less working knowledge we have to use on a task.  This is why learning and memorizing core knowledge is important.  If one has the background knowledge memorized or internalized in long-term memory, he can free up his working memory for analysis and critical thinking.  If one is trying to analyze a situation but has no grasp on the basic facts, then most of his working memory is spent just trying to learn and understand the basic facts and concepts.  One big problem of government education is that in the last century the push has been to skip learning the core knowledge and try to proceed directly to critical thinking (which doesn't work well at all).  This is one reason why the school system doesn't get better results. 

 

I can't remember exactly, but I believe Hirsch and his organization of many researchers spent years researching and cataloguing the body of knowledge which is considered assumed background knowledge for our culture.  Therefore, Core Knowledge is not just some random set of facts that Hirsch thought was nice to know, or a set of information that Hirsch wants to standardize for America.  Core Knowledge actually *is* the body of information that our culture *assumes* that we already know if we are well educated. 

 

In application of this research, Hirsch developed the Core Knowledge K-8 Sequence for public and private schools as one way to teach the body of Core Knowledge systematically.  Of course it is not the only way to teach it, but it can be a helpful tool for schools and educators.

 

I try to build my homeschooling on best evidence, and Core Knowledge is one of the primary tools that I use.  CC Foundations happens to be an easy way for me to teach a good amount of the Core Knowledge to my kids in a way that they can remember. 

 

So 8, you are basically correct in your assessment of me.  I agree with CC and "classical" or "neo-classical" education in as far as it aligns with Core Knowledge and other evidence-based ideas about which Hirsch and Willingham write prolifically.  Classical education departs from Core Knowledge somewhere around logic/middle school, which is likely where I will depart from CC.

[maryanne]

Thank you for your post.  I liked all of it even though I didn't quote all of it. I posted my 2 cents on CC near the beginning and haven't been brave enough to continue posting as the thread became increasingly contentious.

 

I think that Classical Education used to be the knowledge necessary for cultural literacy in Europe and later the U.S. As cultures change and new information is added the core knowledge (lower case "c" and "k") probably also changes over time and the Core Knowledge (upper case "C" and "K") may now be more representative.

 

I don't know how much CC Foundations contributes to cultural literacy, though.  It contributes a little in the area of history but not at all in literature. It would be up to parents to provide that at home. We however have benefited greatly from CC Foundations for 2 reasons.

 

First, I don't think we would have memorized nearly as much information without the songs and chants and positive peer pressure environment provided by Foundations. I would not have had any idea just how much my dc were capable of memorizing without it, and I would not have been able to provide the fun environment for memorization by myself at home. My dc now also know that they can memorize a lot with relative ease because they have practiced it successfully for years.  Their ability to memorize will serve them well I think.

 

Along those same lines, core/content knowledge is vital for critical thinking and analysis.  Willingham explains the neuroscience behind this well.  Our brains have a very small working knowledge.  The more that we can automate, the less working knowledge we have to use on a task.  This is why learning and memorizing core knowledge is important.  If one has the background knowledge memorized or internalized in long-term memory, he can free up his working memory for analysis and critical thinking.  If one is trying to analyze a situation but has no grasp on the basic facts, then most of his working memory is spent just trying to learn and understand the basic facts and concepts.  One big problem of government education is that in the last century the push has been to skip learning the core knowledge and try to proceed directly to critical thinking (which doesn't work well at all).  This is one reason why the school system doesn't get better results. 

 

 

 

The second benefit is the one referenced the quote above.  My dc have, through CC Foundations, added quite a bit of useful background knowledge into their long term memories. Although some CC's choices of tidbits have seemed a little odd to me; the overall benefit of that knowledge will, again, serve them well.  In particular I've already seen them benefit from the English grammar memory work.  We have also done Rod & Staff Grammar and put to use the CC memory work as they progressed through their grammar lessons.  I've also begun to see the CC grammar memory work serve them well in writing and to some extent foreign language study. I think perhaps their science memory work choices are the most questionable, but for me at least, to reject the entire program because of the science memory work would have been a case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so to speak. I do think the program would benefit from adding in some great poetry and/or speeches to memorize which would also improve the cultural literacy benefit.

 

The Challenge program is, however, not nearly as good a fit as Foundations for our family, and we will probably be done with it after the end of this school year.
 

[NASDAQ]

Core Knowledge is really designed for public schools. Kids in very enriched environments usually already cover CK. Hirsch's point was that we owe it to kids who aren't from an enriched environment to make sure that they are exposed to a common body of knowledge. It can be easy to forget that there are kids who have never heard fairy tales and who don't get dragged off to see mummies at museums. The ideal was to have a network of schools that covered similar topics at similar times, because kids (disproportionately poor) can be put at a huge disadvantage and get a shoddy, patchwork education as a result of multiple moves in elementary school.

 

It was a reaction against a trend to make everything skills-based and reflective of a child's life at home.

[TracyP]

Core Knowledge is really designed for public schools. Kids in very enriched environments usually already cover CK. Hirsch's point was that we owe it to kids who aren't from an enriched environment to make sure that they are exposed to a common body of knowledge. It can be easy to forget that there are kids who have never heard fairy tales and who don't get dragged off to see mummies at museums. The ideal was to have a network of schools that covered similar topics at similar times, because kids (disproportionately poor) can be put at a huge disadvantage and get a shoddy, patchwork education as a result of multiple moves in elementary school.

 

It was a reaction against a trend to make everything skills-based and reflective of a child's life at home.

 

Yes. I had a really hard time understanding this approach until I realized how little time was spent on Social Studies and Science in public schools. Somebody linked a Willingham you tube video on this once that helped me understand. IIRC, 4th graders spend 3% of their school time on SS and 4% on science. 

 

I don't have strong feelings either way about CK, but it was helpful for me to understand what was driving Hirsch's philosophy. Giving kids a common body of knowledge seems to be a worthy goal. Of course, for many it isn't so much a goal as a given. I think that makes the CK approach difficult for some people to understand - at least it did for me.