Education Philosophies...especially Perennialism

[Kfamily]

I've been trying to really sort out my thoughts about education and my own personal philosophy about it. I have, over these years of homeschooling, really come to know what it is important to me and what is not, but lately I've been frustrated over my lack of ability to really tighten this up a little. I think that my own label of being mostly CM but with a lot of Circe-style classical mixed with it has made me feel more adrift than stable. I hope that I'm making sense. I'd really like to learn more about educational philosophies....and I'm hesitant to even use the word philosophy because I don't want to use it improperly. I usually use words like the ideas of CM, or classical methods, etc.

I've just read a few basic definitions on different education philosophies and I'd like to learn more about perennialism. Which curricula available today would fit under this label? And if it does, does it meet all of the definition of it? (For example, from what I understand, Adler and his teachings would fit under perennialism but what would his curriculum look like? I do have How to Read a Book and have seen his site with the Great Ideas. But, I was wondering about what a more detailed curriculum of his would look like.)

Here is one description for perennialism that I found:

For Perennialists, the aim of education is to ensure that students acquire understandings about the great ideas of Western civilization. These ideas have the potential for solving problems in any era. The focus is to teach ideas that are everlasting, to seek enduring truths which are constant, not changing, as the natural and human worlds at their most essential level, do not change. Teaching these unchanging principles is critical. Humans are rational beings, and their minds need to be developed. Thus, cultivation of the intellect is the highest priority in a worthwhile education. The demanding curriculum focuses on attaining cultural literacy, stressing students' growth in enduring disciplines. The loftiest accomplishments of humankind are emphasized– the great works of literature and art, the laws or principles of science. Advocates of this educational philosophy are Robert Maynard Hutchins who developed a Great Books program in 1963 and Mortimer Adler, who further developed this curriculum based on 100 great books of western civilization.

from this site:http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ed416/PP3.html


How would the ideas from Bloom and his taxonomy fit under this? Or does it?

Are there any books, articles or sites that you would recommend?

What is your educational philosophy? Do your curriculum choices support it?


I was thinking that I would like to learn more and then sit down and really write out my own thoughts about what I've read. We've finally settled down in our own home again and the many different books, skills and subjects that both of my girls are about to begin need to be planned. I'd like to gather my thoughts and write out my goals for them before working on the details individually.


I'm sorry that this post is so unorganized. I think it reflects my thoughts, which is why I would love it if someone would share their thoughts with me. How do you sort out your own personal educational philosophy and how do you implement it in your curriculum choices? Also, what do you know about perennialism and which curricula fits under this label? Do you think these examples meet all of the points of the description?

ETA: I would imagine that I would want to make adjustments to any one philosophy...for example, I would give a strong focus to western civilization but would be sure to include eastern civilization as well. I'm sure that I would make other adjustments as well. How do you create your own distinct version of a philosophy?

Thank you! :)

[Hunter]

I've never heard that term before, but I think it applies to the idea of reading a few Great Books a year, instead of a long list of "classics".

[Hunter]

I found this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_perennialism

 

I've been studying this topic this week, not knowing the name for it. The international competition threads just...lit a fire under me to explore some of the old LCC (before the book) ways, even though I didn't read most of those threads. I just remember when people talked about rearing princes instead of...whatever they are doing now.

[Hunter]

I got this book from the library today.

 

A Great Idea at the Time: The Rise, Fall, and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Idea-Time-Curious-Afterlife/dp/B0027VT07O

 

About half the books I've gotten seem to be anti Great Books, instead of pro. This is one of them. I'm just not finding what I am looking for in these books.

[abba12]

I have never fit any educational philosophy, and I use elements of different things in different subjects. Because DH and I were both homeschooled as children, it was important we got on the same page right from the start about how, what, and why we would teach our children what we do, as we both had preconceived ideas, assumptions, and preferences. I knew there was no way we could achieve that using the typical labels, we're too eclectic.

 

After a number of discussions I sat down one weekend and wrote out our ultimate educational goals, and what we believe the purpose of education is. Then I wrote out a few points relating to the theory on how we believe it should/can be achieved. I ended up with a list of about 20 points which define our homeschool. Along with the obvious stuff like what subjects are a priority and what the purpose of schooling is, I included things like whether or not I felt school should be inherently 'fun' and points regarding if and when independent learning should be encouraged more.  These points together were supposed to make a complete theory of what our homeschool looks like. Because we are religious I also connected as many of these points as I could to bible verses to back them up. Not just the standard ones that get quoted, but, for example, I believe I included a verse from Song of Solomon which described a large variety of plants to support the point that creativity is obviously a godly trait and appreciation of beauty/variety are important traits to foster and there is more to life than facts and books. God didn't create a selection of 5 flowers to pick from, he created thousands upon thousands, and even placed them so that different people have access to different ones. You can adjust or skip this as your beliefs see fit but it was an important step for us.

 

Then, I divided our subjects up into groups (skill, content, and I added a third group I labeled personality, though I need a better name for it. That one includes things like logic, psychology, theology, creativity and appreciation, etc). Under each of these headings I made a subheading for Lower grades, middle grades and upper grades, as my personal approach varies broadly among different age groups.

 

I proceeded to detail, in bullet points, the practical aspects of what we would teach at each age and how we would teach it. Of course, for high school it's all very theoretical right now, but it gives me an end goal. Each bullet point was backed up with the relevant numbers corresponding to which theoretical goals and points it coincided with. 

 

It sounds convoluted written out like this, but now I have this document which is about 6 pages. If I am evaluating, say, a science curriculum for grade 3, I can go to my list, go to content subjects-lower grades and read the 'criteria' it should meet. If I find myself questioning a criteria I can use the numbers to reference the main points that developed that criteria to see if I still believe them valid and assess the curriculum directly against them. 

 

It has helped a lot to know where we are going, and it has helped me to avoid the shiny new curriculum which might be a total flop even though everyone else is using it.

[8filltheheart]

I have never heard of that term before. I only have a sec, so I can't really share my thoughts (which are that it sounds very similar to where I have landed without the Christian base that I have).

 

I wanted to comment about Bloom's. From my POV, it is not an educationally philosphy at all. It is a method of teaching. It would sort of be like taking any basic skill and deciding how to teach tHe skill. It doesn't influence the content so much as how one deals with the content.. Whereas philosophy is definitely influences content.

[Crimson Wife]

Adler's "Paideia" books are excellent. They were written for use in classroom-based schools but I think that HSers would benefit from reading them as well. .

[Kfamily]

I found this chapter (5) very interesting and thought that I would share it here:

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3bHoAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA71&dq=perennialism+and+curriculum&ots=I1GU2Qg76a&sig=yGpgFosos6bRPktd_ZDVbdbG0L0#v=onepage&q=perennialism%20and%20curriculum&f=false

[elegantlion]

Have you looked around at Great Books Academy? http://www.greatbooksacademy.org/

 

Also, http://www.greatbooks.org/

 

Not sure if that fits what you're looking for and you've probably seen the sites already. 

[Hunter]

Have you looked around at Great Books Academy? http://www.greatbooksacademy.org/

 

Also, http://www.greatbooks.org/

 

Not sure if that fits what you're looking for and you've probably seen the sites already. 

 

I have never understood these long lists of the "good books" and "classics" to prepare for the "Great Books" when history tells us that children were taught from the Great Books right away.

[ElizaG]

I have never understood these long lists of the "good books" and "classics" to prepare for the "Great Books" when history tells us that children were taught from the Great Books right away.

 

It depends on whether you're talking about "Great Books" in the sense of

 

"books that have been widely believed, throughout history, to be of the very highest literary, moral, and cultural value"

 

or

 

"books that have been very influential in history, and provide a lot of ideas for debate"

 

Hutchins and Adler's Great Books of the Western World list is in the latter category.  For instance, it doesn't include Cicero, even though his works were the most frequently used in European classical education for centuries (there was a joke that the Jesuits called him "Saint Cicero").  On the other hand, it does include The Communist Manifesto, which isn't exactly something I'd choose for my seven year old's copywork. 

 

The "Good Books" list came as a reaction to this modern conception of "Great Books."  It's meant to be a way to provide young people with some sort of moral and (vaguely) spiritual foundation, in a way that's workable in a pluralistic, dechristianized context.  This is supposed to make them better able to make judgments about the ideas they'll be reading about in the GBWW.

 

For Christians and other religious homeschoolers -- who are free to choose materials in accordance with their own faith -- the whole thing does seem like an unnecessary complication.  

[ElizabethB]

http://www.susancanthony.com/ws/philtrans.html

 

http://www.susancanthony.com/ws/_pdf/phlhdn.pdf

 

The second link has examples of which types of curriculum she thinks goes with each type of philosophy. It was written in 1999 when there were less choices, and she was a teacher and taught homeschooling seminars but never homeschooled herself.

[Kfamily]

Thanks. Very interesting. It reminded me of this article that was linked in a recent thread about the "Great Books" curriculum. http://www.mmisi.org/ma/31_3-4/wilhelmsen.pdf

 

This is so interesting and I'm pleased that people, much more capable than me, are thinking and writing about these things.

 

I haven't had a chance to read all of this but it looks interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Kfamily]

http://www.susancanthony.com/ws/philtrans.html

 

http://www.susancanthony.com/ws/_pdf/phlhdn.pdf

 

The second link has examples of which types of curriculum she thinks goes with each type of philosophy. It was written in 1999 when there were less choices, and she was a teacher and taught homeschooling seminars but never homeschooled herself.

 

Thank you! This looks very helpful! :)

[ElizaG]

After puzzling over some of these articles a few months back, I've been wondering about the origins of this idea of dividing American education into "four philosophies" (or, in the newer versions, "five philosophies").  The first examples I've been able to find are in the writings of Harold Rugg (1947) and Theodore Brameld (1950), who were among the founders of social reconstructionism.   Brameld's book was widely used in teachers' colleges, and influenced a lot of other writers of education textbooks. 

 

The thing is, traditional education in this country -- Protestant, Catholic, classical, 3 R's, or otherwise -- has clearly always had strong elements of both perennialism and essentialism.   There's typically been some level of "progressivism" as well; for instance, many old books recommend teaching younger children through games; classical students were engaged in active learning through exercises in writing and speaking; and Christian writers on education often made a point of their concern for the "whole child."   And the ultimate goal was supposed to be to help us to love God and love our neighbor, which is generally taken to have social ramifications (Thy kingdom come, etc.). 

 

So it seems kind of fishy to me.  As if, maybe, this is a case of "divide and conquer." 

 

[Hunter]

It depends on whether you're talking about "Great Books" in the sense of

 

"books that have been widely believed, throughout history, to be of the very highest literary, moral, and cultural value"

 

or

 

"books that have been very influential in history, and provide a lot of ideas for debate"

 

Hutchins and Adler's Great Books of the Western World list is in the latter category. For instance, it doesn't include Cicero, even though his works were the most frequently used in European classical education for centuries (there was a joke that the Jesuits called him "Saint Cicero"). On the other hand, it does include The Communist Manifesto, which isn't exactly something I'd choose for my seven year old's copywork.

 

The "Good Books" list came as a reaction to this modern conception of "Great Books." It's meant to be a way to provide young people with some sort of moral and (vaguely) spiritual foundation, in a way that's workable in a pluralistic, dechristianized context. This is supposed to make them better able to make judgments about the ideas they'll be reading about in the GBWW.

 

For Christians and other religious homeschoolers -- who are free to choose materials in accordance with their own faith -- the whole thing does seem like an unnecessary complication.

Where do we get a list of "books that have been widely believed, throughout history, to be of the very highest literary, moral, and cultural value"?

 

I reordered Climbing Parnassus, but I know that is not going to be enough. I used that with my son that was planning on pursuing a classics degree. But I want something more modern, now. I don't really know what I'm doing, but none of the lists I'm looking at right now feel even close to right. For now, I'm going through the NtK literature and tracking back to where the stories originated. I've never seen the Eddas listed in modern Great Books list, but if those are the origin of the Norse myth books, then I can't understand why they are not. There are a couple 19th century retellings of the Eddas so I'm thinking they were on older lists of "books that have been widely believed, throughout history, to be of the very highest literary, moral, and cultural value"?

 

I'm also looking up all the books mentioned in Composition in the Classical Tradition, as texts that were used with or demonstrate each stage of the progym.

 

I'm not so much looking for a complete list, but more of a list with a few books that are most useful to use with children and beginning students, as an integrated part of the curriculum.

 

The long lists of good books have never worked for me, even with decades of trying out different teaching styles. That has been a constant.

 

I don't think I'm a Perrenialist. I'm not sure what I am, other than a minimalist. But maybe Perrenialism has different definitions, just like "classical" does?

[Hunter]

I think children are ready for retelllings and short quotes of ANYTHING we are excited about. Our excitement is infectious, and if we are truly intimate with the subject and intimate with the student, we can find a way to make some part of the text relevant to them.

 

I can feel your excitement for the subject. I say plan a little introductory unit for them and see how it goes. Then see if they are ready for more, or if waiting would be better.

[LostintheCosmos]

The thing is, traditional education in this country -- Protestant, Catholic, classical, 3 R's, or otherwise -- has clearly always had strong elements of both perennialism and essentialism. There's typically been some level of "progressivism" as well; for instance, many old books recommend teaching younger children through games; classical students were engaged in active learning through exercises in writing and speaking; and Christian writers on education often made a point of their concern for the "whole child." And the ultimate goal was supposed to be to help us to love God and love our neighbor, which is generally taken to have social ramifications (Thy kingdom come, etc.).

 

So it seems kind of fishy to me. As if, maybe, this is a case of "divide and conquer."

Yes! A couple of years ago, I was at a classical education conference and got so frustrated with the speakers who were so busy dropping anti-Dewey zingers they threw out at least half a dozen infants with the progressive bathwater. A few backtracked when pressed, but even then the vibe was kind of, "Well, moms can cuddle their kids while teaching them the ABCs, but sooner or later the lectures, declensions, and beatings must begin, followed in a few years by rigorous Socratic discussions." This did not strike me as adequate (incidentally, I think a lot of the speakers at this conference actually practice better than they preach - but for those of us who lack pedagogical intuition - ME - getting the preaching right is pretty key to good practice).

 

I've been reading Fr. Donnelly's book, though (thanks for that link!) and feel like I'm finally seeing a way forward - that actual traditional education, rather than contemporary reconstructions, did in fact transcend the false dichotomy so much of our educational arguments today seem to be stuck in. Whew.

[ElizaG]

OK, I have to ask. Why not? :) I was just wondering when my seven year old might be ready for that particular work the other day, as reading it had a huge impact on me when I was younger. 

 

My main concern is that we didn't get to modern times yet. The Communist Manifesto is best understood after completing the four-year history cycle at least once. My aunt was the head librarian of a very impressive library when I was growing up, and just hanging around that library brought me into contact with a great many obscure books at a young age (not quite seven, but not much later). The Communist Manifesto inspired all kinds of romantic ideas about equality, and kept me reading — the rest of the works of Marx and Engels, but also Hegel, Lenin, even Stalin. When I got to the latter, my romantic ideals about equality were pretty much shattered unfortunately :). We live in a post-communist country now, so we can have a live demonstration of how it all worked out in practice. I really can't wait to get to all that.

 

So, when are kids ready for the Communist Manifesto? Wait until modern times, or just do it whenever? I'd love to hear opinions.

 

I'm not sure how to answer this, as I'm pretty sure we're coming at this from different religious, philosophical, and educational perspectives.

 

I'll just say that, to me, the purpose of elementary education isn't to fill young children with "all kinds of romantic ideas about equality" -- coming from sources that I don't personally believe to be reliable -- and then shatter them (or just let them be shattered naturally).    That's actually close to the opposite of what we're aiming for.

[KellieK]

I've been reading Fr. Donnelly's book, though (thanks for that link!) and feel like I'm finally seeing a way forward - that actual traditional education, rather than contemporary reconstructions, did in fact transcend the false dichotomy so much of our educational arguments today seem to be stuck in. Whew.

What book is this?

[LostintheCosmos]

What book is this?

Principles of Jesuit Education in Practice

http://m.hathitrust.org/Record/001449850

[KellieK]

Thank you! Now how am I supposed to read all of this about educating my children without neglecting to educate them the mean time?

[8filltheheart]

A shorter read that I enjoy is the 4 Hallmarks of Jesuit Education. This is a modern spin, but I still find a lot of it helpful. I have taken the idea of prelection and adapted it to mean my preparedness to discuss with my kids.

 

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

[Hunter]

Thank you! Now how am I supposed to read all of this about educating my children without neglecting to educate them the mean time?

:lol: You only study as much of this as is FUN. When it stops being fun, you stop self-educating for awhile, and just teach with what you have. Seriously, some of my best teaching was done when I was too naive to know how stupid I was. I miss that naivety.

 

That first year I had some yard sale books, a small but excellent pubic library the next town over, $100.00 and some paper catalogs that I snail mailed paper checks to, that often took 4-6 weeks to ship my items.

[ElizabethB]

Thank you! Now how am I supposed to read all of this about educating my children without neglecting to educate them the mean time?

Good thing we are taking off 3 days for spring break next week, my reading is piling up as well.

[8filltheheart]

For me, Dialectica, it is as simple as I think those concepts are way beyond a 7 yr old.   Late middle, high school yes.   Elementary, not really.   My personal opinion is that they can't really appreciate the implications of the various systems until they are  more mature.  No, I would not use the Communist Manifesto with a young child.   Not to mention that there are simply so many wonderful works out there that are far more age appropriate and in order to do something that is beyond their real level means that you are having to forego things that are far more beneficial at the various stages of development.

[Hunter]

Consistently foregoing age approapriate topics for a steady diet of more advanced topics isn't a good idea, but when a parent is enthusiastic about a FEW, I think it's fine to introduce them early, especially when the child's environment is deeply affected by those topics.

 

I don't think we are post-communism. The idea is ancient and the idea is everlasting. And I don't think it's all that advanced. The early church was communist and I have broached that with very young children.

 

I don't believe that communism is wrong, or can't work. I think you just need all the pieces of a puzzle to be present and in the right places for something to work. You cannot paste certain ideas onto an otherwise incompatible whole.

 

I'm not pro or anti communism. People will find ways to abuse each other and the weak no matter what form of government is in place. And evil and selfishness will topple any form of government. I'm no expert on the topic, but the USA was started as an expiriment and I think it's still a little early for it to be considered a success and to be forced on other peoples as superior to the one the USA topples.

[Hunter]

I think which Great Books we are able to successfully bring down to our little ones and beginning learners has a lot to do with our INDIVIDUAL selves and environment. And I think we are sometimes mistaken about which ones are usable by own own lack of familiarity and our own prejudices.

 

The part of Perennialism that attracts me is the bringing of the Great Books down to the little ones, instead of feeding them a LONG list of "classics" or Good Books. I want to look through the Great Books and figure out what IS understandable to them.

 

The idea of Children's literature is a NEW, not Perennial idea. I don't have trouble skipping the vast majority of it, to reintroduce the idea of using the Great Books right away. Thankfully, we have the ancient examples of teachers using the Greek and Latin texts to teach Greek and Latin, and Aesop and the epics and Plutarch and more to teach character and the progym. And we we have centuries of examples of the Bible being used with even pre-schoolers.

 

Waldorf's use of Grimm's is inspiring, and offers ideas on how to retell and use a difficult and sometimes gruesome text with 1st graders. I think they also start using unadapted Shakespeare in grade 1 and every year thereafter. Aesop is used in Grade 2. The Bible and the Koran in 3rd and the Norse myths in 4th. The myths used in 4-6th grade now are retellings, but I think that is recent development, and much more traditional and explicit texts were used not long ago. I know there are some here that are very hesitant to use ANY Waldorf, but there are some VERY talented instructors that can offer some GENERAL perennial ideas that can be used with any of the Great Books.

 

I've seen the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence used with 1st graders. ;) Maybe those lessons and ideas could be used as inspiration to introduce a document on an alternative type of government. :lol:

[ElizaG]

I can probably safely ask this within the context of the current discussion. What exactly do you mean by the opposite of the things described above? I can speculate, but that wouldn't get me anywhere near to what you actually intend to say so I'm just asking..

 

The traditional view of elementary schooling is that it's a time to teach basic precepts, which the adults in charge believe to be trustworthy, and upon which the children can build throughout their lives.   In our house, we do talk about other ideas as they come up in context, but they're not at the core of our curriculum.  On the other hand, the texts that are chosen as a basis for language arts work are at the core.  Copywork is learning "by hand," and memorization is learning "by heart."   There's a sense that the things we write down, and the things we memorize, become more deeply ingrained in us. 

 

The idea of putting a deliberate focus on reading and discussing controversial texts, from the early years of education, is just completely different.  It's an extreme example of what Fr. Donnelly (in the above book, published in 1934) described as the pushing of "university methods" down to younger and younger ages.   Even aside from the content, the methods themselves are oriented toward a certain type of intellectual formation, at a time when children need to be learning in a more holistic way. 

 

And yes, Hunter, I know this is starting to sound Waldorfy.  ;)  While I'm not a fan of Steiner in general, I tend to agree that modern education puts too much emphasis on critical and analytical thinking in the early years.  Even if they can do it at this age, I'm not convinced that it's best for them. 

 

This is why I'm thinking that "perennialism" always has to go along with "essentialism" (or some other philosophy) to give it form.   Even if we all agreed on a core list of books to teach, we'd still be stuck on questions of how to teach them, at what age, and so on. 

[Hunter]

I really, really, really agree with not having a DIET of advanced and controversial texts for the early learners. I am SO against that as default method of instruction.

 

But one, two, or even three texts, that make the instructors heart sing, can be introduced.

 

One thing I like about the OLD Ntk series is that it wasn't meant to be the whole curriculum, but just the SHARED part and the FOUNDATION. And then the instructor was supposed to add what was special to her and her students.

 

Some texts that are college texts for some students are everyday ones for others, not because of the difficulty or controversy, but because of geography or other reasons of application.

 

Are the Mayflower Compact and Declaration of Independence controversial and college level texts for American students?

[Kfamily]

I haven't had a chance to read all of the linked books, etc. but thank you for sharing them. I hope to read them soon. Because I'm still reading and reflecting on what I've read, I'm not sure yet what thoughts/questions I have about all of this yet. I may have to come back to some of this later. :)

 

One aspect about the Great Books Academy curriculum that I've been struggling to understand is the books chosen for literature for each grade. I suppose these are the Good Books which were chosen to prepare for reading the Great Books in high school. I disagree with a number of their book choices because many of them are not age-appropriate and/or theme-appropriate for their designated grade and they are not all the best examples of quality literature. It confuses me that the very curriculum (Great Books Academy is very similar to Angelicum as far as I can see.) which is supposed to represent Adler (who, in turn, is one of the two men most often named as an advocate of the perennialist philosophy of education) has some book choices that don't seem to support the description of its own philosophy. I probably don't even need to share my feelings about their choice of books for many of the other subjects for each grade.But, this is my own personal opinion about this and I do realize that others may disagree. :)

 

I think that I still have much more to read and consider. :) I'm still not sure where I fit with all of these philosophies. I have a feeling that I'm still going to need to create my own personal philosophy based on the best of what I know. Once I have this worked out, I can then write it out.

 

 

[8filltheheart]

Are the Mayflower Compact and Declaration of Independence controversial and college level texts for American students?

 

No.   But neither are they accessible to the avg 7 yr old without huge amts of interpretation and explanation.   You are discussing very discrepant issues.   There is a distinction between between being able to memorize something and being able to actually understand what has been memorized.   There is a difference between dealing with works in the original vs adapted.  

 

[8filltheheart]

I haven't had a chance to read all of the linked books, etc. but thank you for sharing them. I hope to read them soon. Because I'm still reading and reflecting on what I've read, I'm not sure yet what thoughts/questions I have about all of this yet. I may have to come back to some of this later. :)

 

One aspect about the Great Books Academy curriculum that I've been struggling to understand is the books chosen for literature for each grade. I suppose these are the Good Books which were chosen to prepare for reading the Great Books in high school. I disagree with a number of their book choices because many of them are not age-appropriate and/or theme-appropriate for their designated grade and they are not all the best examples of quality literature. It confuses me that the very curriculum (Great Books Academy is very similar to Angelicum as far as I can see.) which is supposed to represent Adler (who, in turn, is one of the two men most often named as an advocate of the perennialist philosophy of education) has some book choices that don't seem to support the description of its own philosophy. I probably don't even need to share my feelings about their choice of books for many of the other subjects for each grade.But, this is my own personal opinion about this and I do realize that others may disagree. :)

 

I think that I still have much more to read and consider. :) I'm still not sure where I fit with all of these philosophies. I have a feeling that I'm still going to need to create my own personal philosophy based on the best of what I know. Once I have this worked out, I can then write it out.

 

I agree completely.   It is why I can't agree with Angelicum Academy or GBA.   SOme of their selections are close to meeting my definition of literary junk.

 

[Hunter]

I'm really confused about some things too.

 

When it comes to the Good Books, I think I am knowledgeable enough to just disagree, and think myself "right" in doing so.

 

When it comes to the Great Books lists, that I currently have access too, I still disagree, but have so much less confidence in my ability to pick and choose.

 

If Perrenialism is the Adler list, then I am not Perennial.

[NASDAQ]

I just looked at Great Books Academy for dd's age.

 

It's a very strange choice to do the entire series of Little House on the Prairie.

[Crimson Wife]

I agree completely.   It is why I can't agree with Angelicum Academy or GBA.   SOme of their selections are close to meeting my definition of literary junk.

I just checked the GBA list for 7th grade, as DD will be 7th in the fall. It's a weird mix of classics (Shakespeare, Dickens, James Fennimore Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, C.S. Lewis) with a LOT of G.A. Henty (!) Angelicum's list is identical except it uses a Catholic history text (Light to the Nations), Apologia for science, and what I think is the 7th grade Faith & Life text.

[NASDAQ]

I just checked the GBA list for 7th grade, as DD will be 7th in the fall. It's a weird mix of classics (Shakespeare, Dickens, James Fennimore Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, C.S. Lewis) with a LOT of G.A. Henty (!) Angelicum's list is identical except it uses a Catholic history text (Light to the Nations), Apologia for science, and what I think is the 7th grade Faith & Life text.

 

It's weird, isn't it?

 

I can't imagine making a reluctant kid read the entire Little House series. Surely you'd get more marginal value from doing one and then moving on to some other book or series. Same thing with G. A. Henty -- even if I thought he was a valuable author (I don't), one selection would suffice.

[justamouse]

I haven't had a chance to read all of the linked books, etc. but thank you for sharing them. I hope to read them soon. Because I'm still reading and reflecting on what I've read, I'm not sure yet what thoughts/questions I have about all of this yet. I may have to come back to some of this later. :)

 

One aspect about the Great Books Academy curriculum that I've been struggling to understand is the books chosen for literature for each grade. I suppose these are the Good Books which were chosen to prepare for reading the Great Books in high school. I disagree with a number of their book choices because many of them are not age-appropriate and/or theme-appropriate for their designated grade and they are not all the best examples of quality literature. It confuses me that the very curriculum (Great Books Academy is very similar to Angelicum as far as I can see.) which is supposed to represent Adler (who, in turn, is one of the two men most often named as an advocate of the perennialist philosophy of education) has some book choices that don't seem to support the description of its own philosophy. I probably don't even need to share my feelings about their choice of books for many of the other subjects for each grade.But, this is my own personal opinion about this and I do realize that others may disagree. :)

 

I think that I still have much more to read and consider. :) I'm still not sure where I fit with all of these philosophies. I have a feeling that I'm still going to need to create my own personal philosophy based on the best of what I know. Once I have this worked out, I can then write it out.

 

Sometimes, when a parent is new at classical homeschooling and has no where to turn and just cannot find the time to read the books before the child, Angelicum/GBA can be sort of a cheat sheet. Cliff notes for parents. Is it a great list? No, but it's an OK one, and some should be skipped. But it's a start and they're inexpensive. 

 

Are they my first pick? No. But depending on where I think a parent is as far as time, inclination, ability, I do toss it out as a possibility for them. 

 

I just checked the GBA list for 7th grade, as DD will be 7th in the fall. It's a weird mix of classics (Shakespeare, Dickens, James Fennimore Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, C.S. Lewis) with a LOT of G.A. Henty (!) Angelicum's list is identical except it uses a Catholic history text (Light to the Nations), Apologia for science, and what I think is the 7th grade Faith & Life text.

Both GBA and Angleicum are headed up by Dr James Taylor, who wrote Poetic Knowledge:The Recovery of Education. Dr Senior was his mentor and one of his professors. (If I remember correctly)

[Kfamily]

Sometimes, when a parent is few at classical homeschooling and has no where to turn and just cannot find the time to read the books before the child, Angelicum/GBA can be sort of a cheat sheet. Cliff notes for parents. Is it a great list? No, but it's an OK one, and some should be skipped. But it's a start and they're inexpensive. 

 

Are they my first pick? No. But depending on where I think a parent is as far as time, inclination, ability, I do toss it out as a possibility for them. 

 

Both GBA and Angleicum are headed up by Dr James Taylor, who wrote Poetic Knowledge:The Recovery of Education. Dr Senior was his mentor and one of his professors. (If I remember correctly)

 

I do like many of the suggestions from the book lists and definitely see the value in their choice. I was just surprised at some of the titles. I had meant to add this to my post, but was distracted. ETA:  Also, while I may like a particular book title, I may not use it at the grade they did or as many by the same author.

[Hunter]

Here is an interesting article about the failure of a "Great Books" Orthodox university.

 

http://cutsinger.net/pdf/once_and_future_college.pdf

 

I detected a "blame the victim" mentality in the article; the accusation that students who struggled with the curriculum wanted a more black and white education. I see it as a cautionary tale of tossing 18 year olds, fresh out of typical American high school, into the midst of many conflicting ideas.

I only skimmed it quickly, but long skirts for women and silence at meals, is introducing a whole set of OTHER issues beyond the curriculum. I don't know how to really be able to look clearly at the curriculum in context of all that.

[Hunter]

I am just totally unable to find anything with the same priorities I have, so of course the selections are going to seem weird to me. It frustrates me, because I don't think I'm the only one with the priorities I have.

[ElizaG]

Here is an interesting article about the failure of a "Great Books" Orthodox university.

 

http://cutsinger.net/pdf/once_and_future_college.pdf

 

I detected a "blame the victim" mentality in the article; the accusation that students who struggled with the curriculum wanted a more black and white education. I see it as a cautionary tale of tossing 18 year olds, fresh out of typical American high school, into the midst of many conflicting ideas.

 

That is interesting.  Compared to other Great Books curricula, they chose to include a large number of non-Western religious texts.  And I take it that, as Orthodox, they weren't using Thomism, or any other systematic philosophy, as a framework for discussing their own religious teaching.  

 

I'm trying to picture the Cappadocian Fathers engaged in a Socratic discussion with Zen Buddhists and Kabbalists.  The whole experience of trying to think about it is very, umm, Alan Watts, man.  :cool:  I'm seeing how some of those kids might have found themselves on a bad trip.

 

It's like two different sides of America in the 50s.  The button-downs (Adler & company) and the beatniks. 

[justamouse]

Is Dr. Taylor still with with Angelicum/GBA? I thought he left Angelicum when he founded the St. Raphael Orthodox School.

 

http://www.antiochian.org/interview-dr-james-taylor-st-raphael-orthodox-online-school

 

He may have left, but he was still responsible for those lists and books. 

[KellieK]

I just compared the book lists for St. Raphael's to Angelicum's list. They are very different. I wonder if Dr. Taylor has changed his mind about the quantity of "good books" a young child should read. At first glance, the St. Raphaels' list looks to be a "less in more" list. Especially when compared to Angelicum's.

 

For example, Angelicum's Kindergarten's list includes 3 Andrew Lang fairy tale books and the Wind in the Willows (year 2 on Ambleside Online). As the mother of an almost kindergartener, 3 Lang books seems to be a bit much and the AO assignment of Wind in the Willows to Year 2 makes more sense to me than Kindergarten. http://angelicum.net/curriculum-2/kindergarten-level/

 

The St. Raphael list for Kindergarten is much simpler. http://www.raphaelschool.org/nursery.html

 

I really like the simplicity of this program. It seems much more doable especially because of the way they have the kids grouped. I wonder how it works having a 7 and an 11 year old in the same class?

[Hunter]

Does St Raphael change their booklist each semester? There is no master list, that they rotate through, right?

[justamouse]

Tibbie, that looks like a MUCH better list. 

[8filltheheart]

Tibbie, that looks like a MUCH better list. 

 

I don't know.  Some of the listings make no sense to me.  Archimedes and the Door of Science is definitely not appropriate for high school in my opinion.   Sometimes I think gyrations to make things "fit" make common sense fly out the window.

[KellieK]

I don't know. Some of the listings make no sense to me. Archimedes and the Door of Science is definitely not appropriate for high school in my opinion. Sometimes I think gyrations to make things "fit" make common sense fly out the window.

I agree about Archimedes and the Door of Science is not a challenge for High School students, but I learned many things and got excited too study further when I read it to my children. I saw that and thought it must just be meant to be a jumping off point for independent study.

[ElizaG]

It's not clear how the books on the St. Raphael list are meant to be used.  I've found over the years that, for me, it's been easy to slip into wishful thinking about curriculum.  This particular one just seems too new, vaguely described, and (for now) sparse, to say much about it. 

 

About the Angelicum/GBA book list -- James S. Taylor is credited in the literature guides, but I don't know if he had much involvement in putting together the year-by-year lists.  This page, written by Elisabeth Carmack, just says that "we" did it.  I'm not sure who the "we" were, but looking at the faculty and staff page, no one seems to have come to the program with a background in elementary education.  And that includes Dr. Taylor.  (He taught Children's Literature in colleges, but that's nowhere near the same thing as teaching children.)  

 

John Senior wasn't an elementary teacher either.  He saw some things that were missing from most modern people's childhoods, but he didn't really have a "curriculum" in a school sense.  Nor did Mortimer Adler -- though his K-12 Paideia Proposal did have a category for practical skills and 12 years of PE, which IMO would be a better substitute for some of those series books.   And I think John Senior might have agreed, given his emphasis on real things. 
 

According to Wikipedia:  "Perennialists believe that one should teach the things that one deems to be of everlasting pertinence to all people everywhere."   Well, when you put it that way, I think plain cooking would have to qualify.  :001_smile:

 

 

[Hunter]

By Wikipedia's efinition I'm a Perennialist, but by these websites, I am NOT.