Charlotte Mason and Classical Don't Seem to be the Same to Me

[TheAutumnOak]

Herbart was another one.  People sometimes assume that she was opposed to him, because she disagreed with his "sac theory," but she repeats some of his ideas.  

 

As far as I can tell, about the most traditional of CM's influences was Matthew Arnold.  She had great respect for him, and drew very heavily on his ideas, though she didn't always quote him directly.  Coleridge was another (I'm still trying to get through a book on his thought, which I got interested in during a previous CM discussion).   They were both on the slightly more conservative side in their time, but that's only relative to other strains of Victorian thought -- some of which were a lot more "out there" than we might think by looking at ordinary life in Victorian society.

 

I think there were some aspects of her method that were distinctive (such as the very short lessons, and "not getting between the child and the book"), but most of her overall goals, such as providing a liberal education for every child, having them read excellent literature in English, and supporting character development, were very common ones in the late 19th century.   For instance, the whole system of public education in English Canada was founded on this sort of vision, via the Scottish model.    

 

Dethroning Classics and Inventing English:  Liberal Education and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Ontario

 

The author of the above book of makes this comment, in the introduction (p. 2):

 

"The transition from classics to English within liberal education was complete [by 1900], but challenges were ever present, including the beginning of the common twentieth-century notion that the best way to study human beings and achieve social salvation is not through literature, whether classical or English, but through science, especially social science in a period of challenge to the social fabric.   Thus, the very ideal of classical literary humanism, even though English rather than Latin or Greek, was subject to nascent pressure at the end of the century."  

 

It does seem that Charlotte Mason was more on the side of what he calls the "ideal of classical literary humanism," but I think it would be a stretch to describe all such systems as "different types of classical education."   

 

"Liberal education" is the term that CM used to describe her goals.  Huge amounts have been written on this subject over the last couple of centuries, and the phrase is still used in mainstream education circles today.   CM, Great Books, Core Knowledge, TJE, the various "neo-classical"/Sayers-inspired methods, the various ideas promoted by CiRCE, literature-based curricula such as Sonlight, and even "quasi-unschooling while reading lots of good books," are all different, but they're all very clearly approaches to liberal education.  I don't think there's any controversy about this.  

 

I find it curious that many of her followers don't seem to want to adopt this term, and instead are heading (en masse, apparently) toward "classical education," which is a term she herself didn't use, except to describe the curriculum of the private English boys' schools of her day.  

 

Maybe it's because the word "liberal" is considered undesirable for political or theological reasons?  But people still talk about the "liberal arts," so... IDK.    :confused1:

 

This makes sense, thanks for posting it...Liberal education as a term does make more sense...I also wonder why the move towards classical as a term...

 

You clearly know more about this topic than I do and I thank you :001_smile:

 

[TheAutumnOak]

Me to.  She has every right to stop writing, of course.  And I know she said something about the Schole Sisters carrying the torch, I suppose I even agree as far as bloggers seeking to combine Charlotte Mason with Circle style Classical.  She was fairly unique in that for a while, and now suddenly 4 (or is it 5) more!

 

But Cindy Rollins had a wealth of experience and knowledge that I'm just not seeing (so far) in the Schole Sister's posts. Lady dropped some truth on that blog. The Schole Sisters are encouraging and all, but they aren't getting down-and dirty in the details the way Ordo Amoris did.  And many of them (all of them?) haven't graduated any children yet, and I do think hindsight is often more helpful than being in the trenches, as far as advice goes.  The gal that writes at Amongst Lovely Things, for example, has written several times how it doesn't matter if you get "behind" in your math program.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I'm not arguing that.  But I wonder if she'd speak differently if she had a highschooler?  Does it still not matter?  

 

We do lack voices of moms that have BDTD all the way through.  That's what I appreciate so much about these boards, and what I loved about Ordo Amoris.

 

The bold above...This...I will miss Cindy's blog and am really sorry that I was late to discover it...

 

 

[ElizaG]

This makes sense, thanks for posting it...Liberal education as a term does make more sense...I also wonder why the move towards classical as a term...

 

You clearly know more about this topic than I do and I thank you :001_smile:

 

You're welcome... DH will be glad to know that my personal reading budget isn't being completely wasted.   ;)  Though the stuff about 19th century philosophy and pedagogy still confuses me a lot. 

 

Someone asked about the curriculum that would have been considered "classical" in CM's day.   A while back, I found an old article from an American boys' magazine that described a visitor's impression of a day at an English boys' school.   I think I might have posted it here, but can't find it.  Will keep looking.  There's also M. L. Clarke's Classical Education in Britain 1500-1900, which isn't in the public domain, but you can view parts of it at the publisher's site and Amazon, or the full book with a free trial from Questia.  

 

As far as I can tell, the English classical system of grammar schools and elite "public schools" had only fairly minor changes from the Renaissance right up to the days of Tolkien and Lewis.  The Catholic colleges in North America were also remarkably constant during this period; they seem to have held out against modernization even longer than the ones in Continental Europe did.   And it's possible that some people who are still around today might have been educated under the old humanistic system -- like Fr. James Schall SJ, who only retired last year at age 86 and is still writing, God bless him.   I'm not sure of the dates, but the Jesuits kept that curriculum going in their seminaries for some decades after it was gone from their high schools.

 

So I don't buy into the idea that we're too far removed from "The Education Traditionally Known As Classical" to really know what it was (which is a separate issue from whether or not we think it's still feasible, or even desirable, in our time).  Christians kept the flame going over centuries -- with ebbs and flows, but always going back to the same sources -- and Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants were all part of it.   

[TheAutumnOak]

You're welcome... DH will be glad to know that my personal reading budget isn't being completely wasted.   ;)  Though the stuff about 19th century philosophy and pedagogy still confuses me a lot. 

 

Someone asked about the curriculum that would have been considered "classical" in CM's day.   A while back, I found an old article from an American boys' magazine that described a visitor's impression of a day at an English boys' school.   I think I might have posted it here, but can't find it.  Will keep looking.  There's also M. L. Clarke's Classical Education in Britain 1500-1900, which isn't in the public domain, but you can view parts of it at the publisher's site and Amazon, or the full book with a free trial from Questia.  

 

As far as I can tell, the English classical system of grammar schools and elite "public schools" had only fairly minor changes from the Renaissance right up to the days of Tolkien and Lewis.  The Catholic colleges in North America were also remarkably constant during this period; they seem to have held out against modernization even longer than the ones in Continental Europe did.   And it's possible that some people who are still around today might have been educated under the old humanistic system -- like Fr. James Schall SJ, who only retired last year at age 86 and is still writing, God bless him.   I'm not sure of the dates, but the Jesuits kept that curriculum going in their seminaries for some decades after it was gone from their high schools.

 

So I don't buy into the idea that we're too far removed from "The Education Traditionally Known As Classical" to really know what it was (which is a separate issue from whether or not we think it's still feasible, or even desirable, in our time).  Christians kept the flame going over centuries -- with ebbs and flows, but always going back to the same sources -- and Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants were all part of it.   

 

That was me that asked about classical in CM's day, thanks again...Do you educate in a CM way?

 

[Targhee]

It doesn't matter what we consider our particular homeschools, but it does matter and make a difference what we call something in the public arena...Words and ideas are what is used to communicate almost everything on the internet...It is confusing when these words and ideas are not clear...Memoria Press, WTM, and LCC aren't exactly the same either, even though all are considered classical...It becomes clearer what your philosophy is when you are say which of the classical methods out there you are using...

 

Schole Sisters is being presented as a form of classical that includes CM...But the two are not the same...For some reason, we are now being told that they are the same, and it just makes the definition of classical even more confusing by throwing something else in the mix...Just wondering why...I really like Schole Sisters, I just wonder what is wrong with being CM?...Why does it have to be the same as classical to be accepted?...Or maybe this approach needs to be called something else?...I am not sure, just thinking out loud at this point...

My point is that because we cannot accurately define classical education we cannot rightly accept or reject candidates for inclusion under its definition.

[VeritasMama]

It does seem that Charlotte Mason was more on the side of what he calls the "ideal of classical literary humanism," but I think it would be a stretch to describe all such systems as "different types of classical education."   

 

"Liberal education" is the term that CM used to describe her goals.  Huge amounts have been written on this subject over the last couple of centuries, and the phrase is still used in mainstream education circles today.   CM, Great Books, Core Knowledge, TJE, literature-based curricula such as Sonlight, the various "neo-classical"/Sayers-inspired methods, the various ideas promoted by CiRCE, and even "quasi-unschooling while reading lots of good books," are all different, but they're all very clearly approaches to liberal education.  I don't think there's any controversy about this.  

 

I find it curious that many of her followers don't seem to want to adopt this term, and instead are heading (en masse, apparently) toward "classical education," which is a term she herself didn't use, except to describe the curriculum of the private English boys' schools of her day.  

 

Maybe it's because the word "liberal" is considered undesirable for political or theological reasons?  But people still talk about the "liberal arts," so... IDK.    :confused1:

 

I think it has more to do with the fact that there are so many interpretations and "flavors" of CM, just as with the label "classical." These styles can vary wildly based on the personalities of those involved.

 

Many of us consider ourselves classical educators and truly do see similiarities between CM and classical, and so we can consider ourselves classical CMers. Given the fact that there are so many different versions of classical, this isn't hard to understand. For me, what I took away from CM's writings was very similiar to what Tibbie describes, and it seemed to fit in with the neo-classical approaches I had researched such as LCC, DYOCC, WTM, Mortimer Adler, etc.  They all seemed to be different roads leading to the same destination, with a few of the same pit stops along the way. But, the fact that I lean more towards the classical methods in general may be why I see CM in this light. I wouldn't call my approach "liberal" because it is more of an eccletic classical approach, and I'm really not implementing a "liberal arts" approach either.

 

Other people who claim to implement CM seem to almost throw out the aspects I find so simliar to neo-classical methods, and focus on certain aspects of CM's methods over others. Think unschoolers who read a lot of living books. They see CM as truly unique, and don't want to use any other labels, or they are the types who don't want to use labels at all.

 

There are those whose main take away is using living books for as many subjects as possible, even in subjects where CM herself would have used a more formal program, such as grammar or Latin, and then try to update the approach by using modern literature selections. This approach isn't really "liberal." Think Sonlight with some CM style nature study thrown in.

 

There are also those who, IMHO, treat CM almost like a guru. They study her every word and try to duplicate her methods and schedules exactly. They wouldn't want any other label besides CM, they are "purists" so to speak.

 

Some CM homeschoolers may avoid the label "liberal" for ideological reasons, but I don't really think it is a concious decision for most CM enthusiasts.

 

As I mentioned, I am "ecclectic." CM appeals to me, aspects of the Circe approach appeal to me, WTM and LCC both had some great take aways that spoke to me.  I see many different flavors of CM out there, and even more flavors of classical. FInding the similiarties between the different approaches helps me focus and clarify what I want to accomplish in my own school. Maybe this means I am intellectually shallow, but I take what I like and leave the rest.

[ElizaG]

That was me that asked about classical in CM's day, thanks again...Do you educate in a CM way?

 

 

No, although from what I've seen on blogs, some enthusiasts might consider parts of our homeschooling that seem pretty basic and ordinary to me (such as reading good books, going outside, drawing, music, writing things in notebooks...) to be "hallmarks of Charlotte Mason."   :001_huh:  Compared to her methods, we tend to have longer lessons, fewer different subjects and books on the go at once, more discussion, and earlier writing instruction.  We've also been doing chronological history and the occasional unit study.   And we've used our share of workbooks, though mostly for preschool and primary grades.   I'm kind of in transition at the moment, trying to start something different from what we've been doing, but not something more CM-ish.  

 

ETA:  I got kind of pulled into the subject, because when I started looking into homeschooling, I joined a fairly large and active board that turned out to have a "CM-inspired" focus.   Some of the things they were recommending didn't really suit me, and I started wondering whether it was because of her ideas, or the way people were interpreting them.  (It turned out to be a combination of both.)

 

I wouldn't call my approach "liberal" because it is more of an eccletic classical approach, and I'm really not implementing a "liberal arts" approach either.  (...)

 

There are those whose main take away is using living books for as many subjects as possible, even in subjects where CM herself would have used a more formal program, such as grammar or Latin, and then try to update the approach by using modern literature selections. This approach isn't really "liberal." Think Sonlight with some CM style nature study thrown in.

I think you might be using "liberal education" in a different way from the standard definition, which pretty much just means any type of education that aims at producing a developed, cultured, thoughtful person, and is based on some version of the liberal arts (not necessarily organized along the lines of the trivium/quadrivium).   All the various permutations of classical and neo-classical are types of liberal education.   So are CM, Sonlight, and many others, as well as eclectic mixes of the above.   So it's not an either/or situation.  

 

What is Liberal Education? -- Mortimer Adler

What is Liberal Education? -- Leo Strauss, 1959

In Defense of a Liberal Education -  Forbes magazine, 2009

[VeritasMama]

I think you might be using "liberal education" in a different way from the standard definition, which pretty much just means any type of education that aims at producing a developed, cultured, thoughtful person, and is based on some version of the liberal arts (not necessarily organized along the lines of the trivium/quadrivium).   All the various permutations of classical and neo-classical are types of liberal education.   So are CM, Sonlight, and many others, as well as eclectic mixes of the above.   So it's not an either/or situation.  

 

What is Liberal Education? -- Mortimer Adler

What is Liberal Education? -- Leo Strauss, 1959

In Defense of a Liberal Education -  Forbes magazine, 2009

 

Yes, I know what the definition of a "liberal education" or "liberal arts" edcuation is, I just don't think that it is a specific enough label for what most CM homeschoolers are doing and it doesn't speak to how they want to be identified. CM is a liberal education, but it is also a specific set of methods used to acheive a liberal education. So that is one possible explanation as to why CMers don't call themselves "liberal educators," it is too broad a category. It is the same reason Classical educators don't call themselves "liberal educators," because they are using classical methods to achieve a liberal education and so they label themselves appropriately.

 

CM has many subgroups, but each one is very specific. My purpose to describe these various sub-groups and their links to CM, to describe how and why they identify with CM and explain why they prefer certain labels.

 

While some people may object to the word "liberal" because of it's modern political connotations, as I said above, I don't see this is the reason it has fallen out of use with homeschoolers. I also think that the term "classical" has more resonance with people today than "liberal education" does, especially since the concept of a "liberal arts" education has been so watered down by the education establishment, and that is why it is used.  This is why I think you hear CM compared with "classical" models and not with "liberal education" models or "liberal arts" models.

 

I also agree with the pp that it is frustrating that all the different "flavors" and interpretations of CM by modern homeschoolers has made it so hard for some people to understand CM, especially since CM's own writings are quite clear.

[Coco_Clark]

I think of classical as heavily influenced by the Trivium.

 

I didn't clue into any of the bits where CM talked about it. Maybe she did, but it's not something I ever picked up.

 

Also, the focus in CM, especially the early years, is not really academic. It's about habit and beauty and nature and observation and health. CM and Waldorf can work beautifully together in the early years - we were a CM/Waldorf household K-3 (eldest).

 

CM is also a method, and can be applied to any living materials. We can use CM methods to study solely contemporary authors, histories, theories, practices.

 

Don't anyone pick my post apart. I'm not a methods scholar. This is just my thinking.

I won't pick you apart, but ill agree to disagree. ;). I think CM even in grades 1-3 is very much about academics.

 

But this proves the point nicely that (for better or worse) the words "classical" and "CM" mean little, at the end of the day. I would imagine Masons methodologies very difficult to blend with Steiners. Sadie does it just fine. Obviously I'm focusing on sections 1,3,4 of Masons methods and she resonated with sections 2,5,6.

 

Am I allowed to think that's great, that we all should use what we want to and scrap the rest...and at the same time be frustrated that the terms are so muddied they are rendered useless?

[Mrs. A]

I guess it all depends on definitions. If you're defining classical in the same way as the schole sisters then CM fits right in. If not, then obviously there will be a disconnect.

 

I don't think it works though to compare CM as a philosophy of education informing a certain method, to MP or any other curriculum because the philosophy and method dictates HOW you use the materials, while the curriculum is more about WHAT you're using. Otoh if you are comparing CM's philosophy to whatever understanding of classical educational philosophy you have, then I guess you can get closer to some sort of answer. :)

 

Fascinating discussion!

[Mrs. A]

Tahara, you might find this discussion of classical an CM helpful. I haven't ever made it through the whole thing, but it's definitely very interesting: https://amblesideonline.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3448&highlight=Classical

[TheAutumnOak]

Tahara, you might find this discussion of classical an CM helpful. I haven't ever made it through the whole thing, but it's definitely very interesting: https://amblesideonline.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3448&highlight=Classical

 

Thanks for the link :001_smile:

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Me to.  She has every right to stop writing, of course.  And I know she said something about the Schole Sisters carrying the torch, I suppose I even agree as far as bloggers seeking to combine Charlotte Mason with Circle style Classical.  She was fairly unique in that for a while, and now suddenly 4 (or is it 5) more!

 

But Cindy Rollins had a wealth of experience and knowledge that I'm just not seeing (so far) in the Schole Sister's posts. Lady dropped some truth on that blog. The Schole Sisters are encouraging and all, but they aren't getting down-and dirty in the details the way Ordo Amoris did.  And many of them (all of them?) haven't graduated any children yet, and I do think hindsight is often more helpful than being in the trenches, as far as advice goes.  The gal that writes at Amongst Lovely Things, for example, has written several times how it doesn't matter if you get "behind" in your math program.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I'm not arguing that.  But I wonder if she'd speak differently if she had a highschooler?  Does it still not matter?  

 

We do lack voices of moms that have BDTD all the way through.  That's what I appreciate so much about these boards, and what I loved about Ordo Amoris.

 

Schole Sisters strikes me as a feel good type blog. I'm not quite sure I get what they mean by classical.

 

Whatever you do, it's classical! That's the impression one post left with me. I couldn't help but wonder... well...then who cares and what does it matter, anyway?

 

 

 

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Why does it matter?

 

 

 

I think there is a very narrow understanding of classical education even in the WTM, which emphasizes Dorothy Sayer's comment (which was not the focus of her Lost Tools of Learning address) about the trivium being aligned to three developmental stages, is history-centric, inappropriately ports the three cycles of history to the study of science, and attempts to fill the early years with academic pursuits when classical educations rarely began at such young ages.

 

And even then, WTM is taken from Sayers, who had the last vestiges of a classical education in the modern Euro-Christian tradition, far removed from the likes of Augustine in Carthage, and even further removed from Classical Greek pedagogy.

 

My point is that there is no purity or absolute here. No matter our attempts to create a classical education we are merely watching the shadows of it on the wall, so the argument is moot. We can't call this classical and that not, because they none of them are.

 

So, what is to be done? That is the real argument.

 

:001_wub:   

 

 

[Coco_Clark]

Schole Sisters strikes me as a feel good type blog. I'm not quite sure I get what they mean by classical.

 

Whatever you do, it's classical! That's the impression one post left with me. I couldn't help but wonder... well...then who cares and what does it matter, anyway?

 

Exactly.  Which is sad, because I was really really looking forward to it.  I suppose I was imagining a Circe for homeschoolers, maybe a tiny bit less lofty and a tiny bit more practical.  I'd be interested to hear THEIR interpretation of what classical means because despite their intro series I'm not clear.  

 

Maybe this is just me and my local community but I don't see much of a need for another homeschooling blog that say, "do the best you can do, and that is enough."  I mean, yes, that's true.  But I think homeschooling parents have more of a lack of discipline than a lack of confidence.  I see more parents turning from "do the best you can do, and that's is enough" to, "do what is convenient and that is enough" than I do parents really honestly doing their best and still not feeling adequate.  

 

I know that I don't need another feel-good pat on the back.  I need practical tips on how to better myself and my teaching.  And sometimes an honest kick in the but that no, it's not ok to skip math for a month because the baby has colic.  

[Alte Veste Academy]

Exactly. Which is sad, because I was really really looking forward to it. I suppose I was imagining a Circe for homeschoolers, maybe a tiny bit less lofty and a tiny bit more practical. I'd be interested to hear THEIR interpretation of what classical means because despite their intro series I'm not clear.

 

Maybe this is just me and my local community but I don't see much of a need for another homeschooling blog that say, "do the best you can do, and that is enough." I mean, yes, that's true. But I think homeschooling parents have more of a lack of discipline than a lack of confidence. I see more parents turning from "do the best you can do, and that's is enough" to, "do what is convenient and that is enough" than I do parents really honestly doing their best and still not feeling adequate.

 

I know that I don't need another feel-good pat on the back. I need practical tips on how to better myself and my teaching. And sometimes an honest kick in the but that no, it's not ok to skip math for a month because the baby has colic.

Amen! I want a blog called "Roll Up Your Sleeves!" that gets into the nitty-gritty details of how to transform platitudes into workable Monday morning plans.

[8filltheheart]

Exactly.  Which is sad, because I was really really looking forward to it.  I suppose I was imagining a Circe for homeschoolers, maybe a tiny bit less lofty and a tiny bit more practical.  I'd be interested to hear THEIR interpretation of what classical means because despite their intro series I'm not clear.  

 

Maybe this is just me and my local community but I don't see much of a need for another homeschooling blog that say, "do the best you can do, and that is enough."  I mean, yes, that's true.  But I think homeschooling parents have more of a lack of discipline than a lack of confidence.  I see more parents turning from "do the best you can do, and that's is enough" to, "do what is convenient and that is enough" than I do parents really honestly doing their best and still not feeling adequate.  

 

I know that I don't need another feel-good pat on the back.  I need practical tips on how to better myself and my teaching.  And sometimes an honest kick in the but that no, it's not ok to skip math for a month because the baby has colic.  

 

I have not joined in this discussion at all b/c I didn't really want to engage.  But this post definitely caught my attention.  This ties in to the discussion of less is more. I have had 2 conversations recently where, trust me, it is clearly evident that less simply translates into less.  Um, no, not all approaches are equal.  (I'm in a bad mood, so excuse my bluntness.)

[TheAutumnOak]

Exactly.  Which is sad, because I was really really looking forward to it.  I suppose I was imagining a Circe for homeschoolers, maybe a tiny bit less lofty and a tiny bit more practical.  I'd be interested to hear THEIR interpretation of what classical means because despite their intro series I'm not clear.  

 

Maybe this is just me and my local community but I don't see much of a need for another homeschooling blog that say, "do the best you can do, and that is enough."  I mean, yes, that's true.  But I think homeschooling parents have more of a lack of discipline than a lack of confidence.  I see more parents turning from "do the best you can do, and that's is enough" to, "do what is convenient and that is enough" than I do parents really honestly doing their best and still not feeling adequate.  

 

I know that I don't need another feel-good pat on the back.  I need practical tips on how to better myself and my teaching.  And sometimes an honest kick in the but that no, it's not ok to skip math for a month because the baby has colic.  

 

The bold above is it!

 

Whether or not you need to "relax" depends on your starting point...Some people will push their kids to the breaking point to accomplish their goals - those people need to relax...I think the average person is not like that...If you know that you have not been consistent, you do not need to "relax"...A relaxed approach should be a conscience decision based on your needs and goals, not a state you are forced into due to lack of discipline...There are legitimate reasons to put school aside for a time, but again, that is a conscience decision...

[TheAutumnOak]

I have not joined in this discussion at all b/c I didn't really want to engage.  But this post definitely caught my attention.  This ties in to the discussion of less is more. I have had 2 conversations recently where, trust me, it is clearly evident that less simply translates into less.  Um, no, not all approaches are equal.  (I'm in a bad mood, so excuse my bluntness.)

 

No excuse needed for the bluntness :) ...Glad you dropped by...

[Coco_Clark]

Amen! I want a blog called "Roll Up Your Sleeves!" that gets into the nitty-gritty details of how to transform platitudes into workable Monday morning plans.

 

We need the ability to like something numerous times.  I want to shout this from a hilltop.  

 

Unfortunately I'm one year into homeschooling (if you count from K, which I do).  I have all the web management and professional editing ability to provide such a thing, but none of the experience.  Much like many of the other homeschool bloggers out there.  I'm not going to add to the ruckus.  

 

Maybe in 20 years eh?

 

Until then, get on that someone else!!

[8filltheheart]

nm 

 

[Coco_Clark]

I hope you weren't offering to start that blog 8 ;)  I'd read it.  

[LostintheCosmos]

I know that I don't need another feel-good pat on the back.  I need practical tips on how to better myself and my teaching.  And sometimes an honest kick in the but that no, it's not ok to skip math for a month because the baby has colic.  

 

I've read a few things from more experienced moms along these lines. Problem is, the practical advice always seems to amount to: "Stop reading my blog and go do some work! You'll figure it out as you go along!" Not quite the short cut I was looking for...  :laugh:

[Soror]

In my neck of the woods you have 2 sets of schoolers, very relaxed or school at home with Abeka etc. I definitely see more encouragement to relax than I do to be more rigorous. Unfortunately those that can best share with us their knowledge and experience are the ones usually too busy to do so. 

 

As Lost Cove so aptly states a lot of it is that we just have to jump in and get to work sometimes. It can be a lot more fun to do the research and dreaming but what really matters is what we are able to apply. We're muddling along here, however imperfectly. I go through periods of intense planning and reflections but a lot of the time we're just working away, that part is not nearly exciting.

[Kfamily]

For me, teaching from a state of rest doesn't mean less is more, but rather creating an environment where a full prepared teacher (that's me) is able to recognize the needs of each of her students and create the give and take needed to keep them moving forward without frustrating them. Flexibility built into an organized set of goals and an awareness of each student's individual needs. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but this is how I see teaching from a state of rest. It doesn't necessarily mean that I teach less, but rather that I teach well. Rest, or a peaceful heart and mind, comes to me when I'm prepared, and can allow for detours within a set of larger goals. Usually skills are not negotiable but content and outcome can be.

 

I do realize that sometimes some families, especially those with a larger number of children than I have, may need to combine in some areas and in other ways condense some subjects. This may be their less is more and I understand this. I think the goal is to find a balance between the sanity created by combining in some areas and keeping a child's individual growth in mind.

 

 

LOl! I edited my words...wow...I took me to mean and it changed everything! :)

[Woodland Mist Academy]

For me, teaching from a state of rest doesn't mean less is more, but rather creating an environment where a full prepared teacher (that's mean) is able to recognize the needs of each of her students and create the give and take needed to keep them moving forward without frustrating them.

 

:lol:

 

I've got that one covered - just ask Lily!  ;)

[HS Mom in NC]

Am I allowed to think that's great, that we all should use what we want to and scrap the rest...and at the same time be frustrated that the terms are so muddied they are rendered useless?

 

This is not unique to the English language.  We have lots of words with different meanings that have evolved over time. Ideas grow and expand and develop into different schools of thought on endless topics.  Yes, it's frustrating but only if you insist on engaging in a conversation on the topic of Classical Education or CM education  and expect to neither listen to other people clarify what they mean by them or for you to clarify to them what you mean.  That's just part of the conversation that most of us have accepted. Besides, they're not useless in all circumstances, they're useless in certain circumstances.

 

There are basically 3 levels of homeschooling jargon around here.  When I'm talking to people who don't homeschool, I use very general terms.  I talk about homeschooling as one big thing. They don't have the background for detailed discussions when they're asking very big picture, general questions. Those terms aren't needed at all here.

 

When I meet people who are homeschoolers that  I don't know them well or people who want to know more about homechooling in more detail, I go one layer deeper when we have the "What kind of homeschooler are you?" or "What curriculum do you use?" conversation.  I tell them that I'm a Classical Trivium and Charlotte Mason hybrid. That's about as much detail as most of them want. I leave it at that unless they ask for more details. Those terms are useful in these situations, broad as they are. Usually it prompts conversations about different book or other resource recommendations for someone who wants to know more.

 

When I have discussions about the details of Classical Education (which I always describe as having many variations) or a discussion about one or more of its subcategories with people familiar with them, I first clarify what type of homeschooler I am (see above) and then I'm very specific about which aspects of each I focus on in content and approach. I talk about different types of notebooking techniques. I cover things like narrations and how I've done both parts to whole and whole to parts approaches and why (CM-whole to parts.  SWB-parts to whole.)  in the field nature studies, directed and undirected and why, the different stage of the Trivium and why I prefer it for some subjects and not others (usually linked to whole to parts vs. parts to whole when it comes to science) the importance of history studies chronologically, Socratic questioning, etc. etc. etc.

 

Because Classical Education is made of up content, teaching approaches and goals it means there are so many different aspects to it people should just resign themselves to having to clarify what they mean when they engage in these discussions.  That's the reality of it.  Classical Education, whether people like it or not, is different things to different people. So are each of its subcategories.  People use the terms differently and they will continue to do so.  That's just how it is.

[8filltheheart]

For me, teaching from a state of rest doesn't mean less is more, but rather creating an environment where a full prepared teacher (that's mean) is able to recognize the needs of each of her students and create the give and take needed to keep them moving forward without frustrating them. Flexibility built into an organized set of goals and an awareness of each student's individual needs. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but this is how I see teaching from a state of rest. It doesn't necessarily mean that I teach less, but rather that I teach well. Rest, or a peaceful heart and mind, comes to me when I'm prepared, but can allow for detours within a set of larger goals. Usually skills are not negotiable but content and outcome can be.

 

I do realize that sometimes some families, especially those with a larger number of children than I have, may need to combine in some areas and in other ways condense some subjects. This may be their less is more and I understand this. I think the goal is to find a balance between the sanity created by combining in some areas and keeping a child's individual growth in mind.

 

I don't disagree with you. My yrly "refocus my energies" is re-reading the 4 Hallmarks of a Jesuit Education.  I was actually referring to 2 threads currently going on about less is more.  

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/525779-less-is-more/

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/525992-less-is-more-curricula/

[Alte Veste Academy]

Unfortunately those that can best she with us their knowledge and experience are the ones usually too busy to do so.

Yep!

 

I've read a few things from more experienced moms along these lines. Problem is, the practical advice always seems to amount to: "Stop reading my blog and go do some work! You'll figure it out as you go along!" Not quite the short cut I was looking for... :laugh:

And THAT is what I imagine 8's NM was. :lol: I have spent years figuring it out for myself, through lots of trial and error. We are generally doing alright. I mean, I think we are not too shabby. LOL But I benefit enormously from reading practical how-to info from those who have gone before. I do not want, nor have I ever wanted, someone to copy, but I crave the nitty gritty. Personally, I am sick of clicking blog links that lead to poetic musings and photoshopped perfection which don't increase my skill as a homeschooler one iota.

 

Frankly, I think reading too much la la la, rah rah rah about homeschooling can actually be hazardous, as it gives you inspiration to continue but no actual tools to improve your teaching. You can spend your time being inspired or you can spend your time learning the material, advancing teaching skills, preparing for discussion...

 

To be clear, I am not bashing all inspirational posts because I think they are helpful sometimes, especially in cases of burnout. But my personal belief is that the best inspiration comes from increased self-confidence, which (for me) comes from increased self-education. And one of my favorite ways to educate myself about the practical side of homeschooling is to read words of wisdom from those who went before. My favorite words are practical though, not rah rah rah! But like soror says, the homeschoolers I would most benefit from eavesdropping on are the most unavailable to share the details of their wisdom because they are in the trenches. I know my trench is getting deeper every year. This year, teaching 6th, 4th, and 3rd, I can barely see over the side! :lol:

[8filltheheart]

I hope you weren't offering to start that blog 8 ;)  I'd read it.  

 

Our storefront has a blog option, but I am not quite sure to even put there.   Chatting is so much easier than talking to myself.  (though maybe it is a delusion and I am really just talking to myself anyway!   :lol: )

[Guest]

CM also taught English grammar Rod and Staff style, and drilled Greek and Latin grammar.

 

Me, too! LOL The point being that CM's grammar instruction is not in contrast to methods currently labeled classical. She also taught the skills through interaction with excellent English in living books, along with moving the children through formal grammar lessons in the upper grammar stage.

 

Can you (or anyone) elaborate on this? What is Rod & Staff style? I always envisioned a CM grammar to be like Emma Serl's Language Lessons. Picture study, narration, dictation, and a short lesson on grammar thrown in here and there. When we did R&S, (2nd grade) it was so tedious and it was not quick. I know many do it orally, but I don't believe it was designed to be oral, and I don't believe it was designed to use it partially (i.e. skipping sentences), although I do think it was created for a classroom setting. And while FLL 1 & 2 seems to me to be CM-ish, FLL 3 & 4 aren't, but they don't seem to be as much busywork as R&S was for us. But, I thought classical would be more rigorous than CM, but with those two grammar programs I find it to be opposite. (Maybe just us?) I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm still struggling with grammar in and of itself in our home, so I don't know if I'm missing something with R&S or what I am misunderstanding. I know everyone loves R&S and I really didn't! I'm a little confused, if you can't tell. :(

[8filltheheart]

Can you (or anyone) elaborate on this? What is Rod & Staff style? I always envisioned a CM grammar to be like Emma Serl's Language Lessons. Picture study, narration, dictation, and a short lesson on grammar thrown in here and there. When we did R&S, (2nd grade) it was so tedious and it was not quick. I know many do it orally, but I don't believe it was designed to be oral, and I don't believe it was designed to use it partially (i.e. skipping sentences), although I do think it was created for a classroom setting. And while FLL 1 & 2 seems to me to be CM-ish, FLL 3 & 4 aren't, but they don't seem to be as much busywork as R&S was for us. But, I thought classical would be more rigorous than CM, but with those two grammar programs I find it to be opposite. (Maybe just us?) I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm still struggling with grammar in and of itself in our home, so I don't know if I'm missing something with R&S or what I am misunderstanding. I know everyone loves R&S and I really didn't! I'm a little confused, if you can't tell. :(

 

I do not think you are confused.   I do not believe CM taught grammar R&S style.   I am not quite sure how she taught it, but I picked up a lot about how I teach grammar from reading CM umpteen yrs ago.  

[GrammarGirl]

Exactly. Which is sad, because I was really really looking forward to it. I suppose I was imagining a Circe for homeschoolers, maybe a tiny bit less lofty and a tiny bit more practical. I'd be interested to hear THEIR interpretation of what classical means because despite their intro series I'm not clear.

 

Maybe this is just me and my local community but I don't see much of a need for another homeschooling blog that say, "do the best you can do, and that is enough." I mean, yes, that's true. But I think homeschooling parents have more of a lack of discipline than a lack of confidence. I see more parents turning from "do the best you can do, and that's is enough" to, "do what is convenient and that is enough" than I do parents really honestly doing their best and still not feeling adequate.

 

I know that I don't need another feel-good pat on the back. I need practical tips on how to better myself and my teaching. And sometimes an honest kick in the but that no, it's not ok to skip math for a month because the baby has colic.

I was a little turned off by one of their posts that seemed to imply a focus on rigor instead of "virtue" wasn't virtuous. But I feel teaching my students discipline and perseverance through difficult work teaches as much virtue and beauty as taking a day off to read moral tales and walk in the woods. I hope I'm not misinterpreting the Schole Sisters intentions; I just mean that I totally agree with you about more discipline not less amongst homeschoolers.

[Kfamily]

I don't disagree with you. My yrly "refocus my energies" is re-reading the 4 Hallmarks of a Jesuit Education.  I was actually referring to 2 threads currently going on about less is more.  

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/525779-less-is-more/

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/525992-less-is-more-curricula/

 

I agree with you :)

 

I was thinking that maybe some of the less is more could be arising, in some part, from the idea of teaching from a state of rest. I think that I interpret those words differently from others. I've read some hints that teaching from a state of rest equates less is more and I wanted to clarify my thinking on it.

 

And you may have already linked the 4 Hallmarks before, so I'll hunt for it, but I'd love to read those again too.

[8filltheheart]

I agree with you :)

 

I was thinking that maybe some of the less is more could be arising, in some part, from the idea of teaching from a state of rest. I think that I interpret those words differently from others. I've read some hints that teaching from a state of rest equates less is more and I wanted to clarify my thinking on it.

 

And you may have already linked the 4 Hallmarks before, so I'll hunt for it, but I'd love to read those again too.

 

It starts around page 176 or 177 of this link http://www.jsea.org/sites/default/files/resources/attachments/Foundations.pdf

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Phoenix, I am off to take a nap after being up with a sick child around the clock, but I will be back to talk about R&S grammar! I don't think it's in opposition to CM style; I think the formal grammar and the copywork/dictation/narration are two sides of the same coin. You see what I'm talking about in the older books, not so much in grades 2 and 3. More later. :)

 

[Rosie_0801]

We need the ability to like something numerous times.  I want to shout this from a hilltop.  

 

Unfortunately I'm one year into homeschooling (if you count from K, which I do).  I have all the web management and professional editing ability to provide such a thing, but none of the experience.  Much like many of the other homeschool bloggers out there.  I'm not going to add to the ruckus.  

 

Maybe in 20 years eh?

 

Until then, get on that someone else!!

 

Try here

[Guest]

I do not think you are confused.   I do not believe CM taught grammar R&S style.   I am not quite sure how she taught it, but I picked up a lot about how I teach grammar from reading CM umpteen yrs ago.  

 

Phoenix, I am off to take a nap after being up with a sick child around the clock, but I will be back to talk about R&S grammar! I don't think it's in opposition to CM style; I think the formal grammar and the copywork/dictation/narration are two sides of the same coin. You see what I'm talking about in the older books, not so much in grades 2 and 3. More later. :)

 

Oh my! :willy_nilly: I'll be interested in hearing from you about it, Tibbie. And I don't mind you talking about StS, btw.

[Chelli]

As a blogger and a homeschool mom who has found herself too many times on the side of undisciplined, I am very interested in the turn this thread has taken. As I've become more disciplined out of necessity and conviction, I have found myself becoming frustrated with the current mantra of many of the homeschoolers I encounter online and in my specific religious denomination. A lackadaisical attitude about their children's education. I even had a close friend tell me that she hadn't done any school with her kids for an entire year because she'd been so busy with other commitments. It really changed how I viewed her and we are not very close any more. She laughed it off as no big deal because their spiritual growth is more important than their academic growth. I find this attitude disturbing and, dare I say, neglectful. But it seems to be a common one: that whatever you do at home (even if you do nothing) is more than what they would learn in public school. I think that there are many blogs that feed this belief whether on purpose or not, I hesitate to say. I would love to use my blog as a "roll up your sleeves" type of platform since I've been on the other side of things, but have come through. However, I don't know what this would look like beyond, "You get up every morning and you teach." I'm not sure how much more blunt you can put it. 

[Mrs. A]

I agree with you :)

 

I was thinking that maybe some of the less is more could be arising, in some part, from the idea of teaching from a state of rest. I think that I interpret those words differently from others. I've read some hints that teaching from a state of rest equates less is more and I wanted to clarify my thinking on it.

 

 

 

I was just coming here to say the same thing - teaching from rest is not the same as being "relaxed" in the sense that it doesn't matter what or how much you do. It's a state of mind that doesn't depend at all on the amount of work on your plate. 

[Chelli]

I was just coming here to say the same thing - teaching from rest is not the same as being "relaxed" in the sense that it doesn't matter what or how much you do. It's a state of mind that doesn't depend at all on the amount of work on your plate. 

 

:iagree: 1,000%! I am really focusing on teaching from rest this year, but the amount of work and the rigor of our work has not lessened. What has changed is where I am approaching it all from personally and how I've organized our studies to be more restful for me as the teacher. I would say that most homeschoolers would consider what we do in a day pretty rigorous, but I feel more relaxed and rested about our homeschool than I have in a LONG time.

[GrammarGirl]

I was just coming here to say the same thing - teaching from rest is not the same as being "relaxed" in the sense that it doesn't matter what or how much you do. It's a state of mind that doesn't depend at all on the amount of work on your plate.

Well said.

 

I was an education major in a small conservative college that rejects much of modern educational theory and practice in favor of more "traditional" methods. We were always encouraged to be even-keeled and flexible in our teaching but to teach with a sense of urgency because the material itself, not just the "experience" is important.

[FO4UR]

Read Climbing Parnassus.  Read CM's books (at least read book 6). It will become clear.

 

 

Everything we see billed as classical is neoclassical.  CM is one flavor of neoclassical.

 

Classical, at it's most basic level, is a liberal (generous) education based upon Western Ideals (founded in Greek and Latin roots). One can go about doing that in many different ways, and there we see CM, TWTM, MP, and more...  The difference between these flavors of Classical go back to philosophical roots.  Here is where you must understand the history of education b/c words change meaning based upon who is hearing them. CM is most certainly Classical, NeoClassical, in the light of Climbing Parnassus.

 

 

The issue is that people form opinions on things they've never studied for themselves and speak loudly. Others write curriculum without a farthing of understanding of the philosophy that *should* serve as the foundation. It's easy to find products marketed as Classical b/c homeschooling has become a niche market $$$.  CM doesn't ever really boast about being Classical. She spends a great deal of time reminding her readers that children are people, deserving of respect and consideration, and that these little people are hungry for ideas. Her students memorize, recite, and know. These things are not trotted around like a dog and pony show, however. (Hey - these children are PEOPLE.) She understood very well that you train up nothing but a selfish tyrant if you do nothing but memorize facts and practice mental tricks. Cultured people (Kind, generous, caring, hard-working, etc...) must be grown up on ideas, ideas about human nature, and from the first. We cannot expect anything but manipulative con-artists if we use manipulative tactics to shove facts and tricks down the throats of our "students."  Our students will learn more by HOW we teach than WHAT we teach.

 

 

CM gives us insight into how to achieve a Classical Education without so many of the emotionally abusive tactics that were prevalent in Victorian English schools. (Education is an Atmosphere, a Discipline, a Life) That insight is still applicable if we read it with an understanding of the world that CM lived in and therefore the world in which helped form her writing. 

 

 

[8filltheheart]

I can definitely see how CM helps to provide a liberal education. Call me stupid but liberal and classical are now the same ?

 

Also, I have no idea how talk of CM and classical turned into a 'lazy mama' slam :) Not how 'lazy mama' connects with 'less is more'.

 

Please. Educate me :)

 

I don't think they were discussing CM or classical in terms of being lazy.   They were referring to blog posts suggesting that anything you do is classical and anything you do is great.  (which on its face is patently false.) 

[TheAutumnOak]

As a blogger and a homeschool mom who has found herself too many times on the side of undisciplined, I am very interested in the turn this thread has taken. As I've become more disciplined out of necessity and conviction, I have found myself becoming frustrated with the current mantra of many of the homeschoolers I encounter online and in my specific religious denomination. A lackadaisical attitude about their children's education. I even had a close friend tell me that she hadn't done any school with her kids for an entire year because she'd been so busy with other commitments. It really changed how I viewed her and we are not very close any more. She laughed it off as no big deal because their spiritual growth is more important than their academic growth. I find this attitude disturbing and, dare I say, neglectful. But it seems to be a common one: that whatever you do at home (even if you do nothing) is more than what they would learn in public school. I think that there are many blogs that feed this belief whether on purpose or not, I hesitate to say. I would love to use my blog as a "roll up your sleeves" type of platform since I've been on the other side of things, but have come through. However, I don't know what this would look like beyond, "You get up every morning and you teach." I'm not sure how much more blunt you can put it. 

 

This is me, and I am still trying to come through on the other side...

 

Teaching from a state of rest for me means not teaching things because of fear or worry...It is being prepared and not anxious...

[Lang Syne Boardie]

About Rod and Staff grammar and Charlotte Mason --

 

I realize I may very well be the first person to say that these two are a match made in heaven, but here goes nothing:

 

My primary point is that CM's goals AND method are easily and almost perfectly pursued and attained with Rod and Staff if the teacher remembers CM's principles as she goes and tweaks a few things. Some might say, "Oh, if you have to tweak it, then forget it, I'll buy something authentically CM," but that doesn't work because adapting the principles and concepts to the student's reading IS authentically CM and nobody can do that for you. You have to walk that lonesome valley! Learn the grammar, yourself, and watch for the opportunity to reinforce the lessons with selections from the written word that your child experiences during his school day outside of the grammar book, and then you are teaching like Charlotte Mason.

 

On to specifics:

 

1. Charlotte Mason believed in delaying formal grammar instruction until age 10 or so, but then it WAS time for formal grammar instruction.

 

If one studies the scope and sequence of R&S one can easily see that the second and third grade books are not prerequisite courses. A student could just as easily begin with the fourth grade book (for older grammar stage students) or the fifth grade book (for logic stage learners, including older teens and adults -- I used the fifth grade book with a 15yo tutored student with great success). As a Charlotte Mason educator, I used copywork, narration, and dictation with my students through third grade, finding that these methods really did encompass everything required for excellence in penmanship, spelling, and usage. In fourth or fifth grade my boys began their formal grammar instruction, just as Charlotte Mason's students did, well prepared to receive it.

 

2. Charlotte Mason said to begin formal grammar instruction with complete sentences rather than with isolated parts of speech.

 

She used complete sentences to introduce the most rudimentary concepts -- those of "subject" and "verb." First the student learns the two parts of speech, and then learns how to supply the missing parts, tell which parts are missing, etc., all while manipulating and studying actual English sentences from Day 1. Once the student has this down there are exercises to reinforce the concept.

 

Study this sample lesson from CM's Original Series (vol. 1. Home Education, excerpt linked from www.ambleside.org)

 

 

 

English Grammar a Logical Study.––Because English grammar is a logical study, and deals with sentences and the positions that words occupy in them, rather than with words, and what they are in their own right, it is better that the child should begin with the sentence, and not with the parts of speech; that is, that he should learn a little of what is called analysis of sentences before he learns to parse; should learn to divide simple sentences into the thing we speak of, and what we say about it––'The cat-sits on the hearth'––before he is lost in the fog of person, mood, and part of speech.

"So then I took up the next book. It was about grammar. It said extraordinary things about nouns and verbs and particles and pronouns, and past participles and objective cases and subjunctive moods. 'What are all these things?' asked the King. 'I don't know, your Majesty,' and the Queen did not know, but she said it would be very suitable for children to learn. 'It would keep them quiet.'"(2)

It is so important that children should not be puzzled as were this bewildered King and Queen, that I add a couple of introductory grammar lessons; as a single example is often more useful than many precepts.

LESSON I

Words put together so as to make sense form what is called a sentence.

'Barley oats chair really good and cherry' is not a sentence, because it makes no(n)sense.

'Tom has said his lesson' is a sentence.

It is a sentence because it tells us something about Tom.

vol 1 pg 297

Every sentence speaks of someone or of something, and tells us something about that of which it speaks.

So a sentence has two parts:
(1) The thing we speak of;
(2) What we say about it.

In our sentence we speak of 'Tom.'

We say about him that he 'has learned his lesson.'

The thing we speak of is often called the SUBJECT, which just means that which we talk about.

People sometimes say 'the subject of conversation was so and so,' which is another way of saying 'the thing we were speaking about was so and so.'

To be learnt––

Words put together so as to make sense form a sentence.
A sentence has two parts: that which we speak of, and what we say about it.
That which we speak of is the SUBJECT.

Exercises on Lesson I

1. Put the first part to––

     â€“–has a long mane.
     â€“–is broken.
     â€“–cannot do his sums.
     â€“–played for an hour;
     etc., etc.

2. Put the second part to––

          That poor boy––.
          My brother Tom––.
          The broken flowerpot––.
          Bread and jam––.
          Brown's tool-basket––;
          etc., etc.

vol 1 pg 298

3. Put six different subjects to each half sentence in 1.

4. Make six different sentences with each subject in 2.

5. Say which part of the sentence is wanting, and supply it in––

          Has been mended
          Tom's knife
          That little dog
          Cut his finger
          Ate too much fruit
          My new book
          The snowdrops in our garden, etc., etc.

N.B.––Be careful to call the first part of each sentence the subject.

Draw a line under the subject of each sentence in all the exercises.

LESSON II

We may make a sentence with only two words––the name of the thing we speak of, and what we say about it:––

          John writes.
          Birds sing.
          Mary sews.

We speak about 'John.'
We say about him that he 'writes.'
We speak about 'birds.'
We say about them that they 'sing.'

These words, writes, sing, sews, all come out of the same group of words, and the words in that group are

vol 1 pg 299

the chief words of all, for this reason––we cannot make sense, and therefore cannot make a sentence, without using at least one of them.

They are called VERBS, which means words, because they are the chief words of all.

A verb always tells one of two things about the subject. Either it tells what the subject is, as––

          I am hungry.
          The chair is broken.
          The birds are merry;

or it tells what the subject does, as––

          Alice writes.
          The cat mews.
          He calls.

To be learnt––

We cannot make a sentence without a verb.
Verb means word.
Verbs are the chief words.
Verbs show that the subject is something––

          He is sleepy;

or does something––

          He runs.

Exercises on Lesson II

1. Put in a verb of being:––

          Mary––sleepy.
          Boys––rough.
          Girls––quiet.
          He––first yesterday.
          I––a little boy.
          Tom and George––swinging before dinner.
          We––busy to-morrow.
          He––punished;
          etc., etc.

vol 1 pg 300

2. Make three sentences with each of the following verbs:––

          Is, are, should be, was, am, were, shall be, will be.

3. Make six sentences with verbs of being in each.

4. Put a verb of doing to––

          Tigers––.
          The boy with the pony––.
          My cousins––;
          etc., etc.

5. Make twenty sentences about––

          That boy in kilts,

with verbs showing what he does.

6. Find the verbs, and say whether of being or doing, in––

          The bright sun rises over the hill.
          We went away.
          You are my cousin.
          George goes to school.
          He took his slate.
          We are seven.

7. Count how many verbs you use in your talk for the next ten minutes.

8. Write every verb you can find in these exercises, and draw a line under it.

 

Rod and Staff Grammar utilizes the identical method. New users might not realize this because they might be overwhelmed by the number of practice problems. They might interpret the paperwork involved, the tedious copying and the number of problems, to be the opposite of CM's short, gentle, effective lessons. But there is no need to teach it this way, and I posit that no experienced English teacher ever would even though it's possible to use the materials this way.

 

The teacher's manual includes the dialogue or script for moving the child through the understanding of the concept (see sample below). If you hand your child the lesson book he will not have this Charlotte Mason experience, but if you will teach the lesson in the TM, face to face with him, it will be a short and engaging lesson that he will remember.

 

The large problem sets exist because the materials are designed for a classroom setting. If the students understand, there is no need to use all of them! Even in my tiny one-room-schoolhouse or homeschool settings, I try the students on some of the exercises (making sure that all concepts are covered and not just arbitrarily choosing odds or evens). If they have it, they have it, and we go on. Also, the first half of the student response section is ORAL and the TM recommends working the problems out on the board. Many homeschoolers have found that the oral drill is sufficient for their quickest students, and a selected number of written exercises sufficient for the rest. These ARE short, gentle, effective exercises.

 

Sample from Rod and Staff English grade 4: Building With Diligence

 

Lesson 3: Learning About Sentences

 

(TM in italic)
Purpose: To review the definition of a sentence.
 

Presenting the Lesson: Introduce the lesson by asking how little children talk. (Examples: "All gone." "Give me." "Water, water." "Toy.") They do not speak in complete sentences, and often we must guess what they mean. Communicating thus is all right when nothing is serious, but mothers are usually glad when their children can express complete thoughts. Sometimes a baby has a pain but cannot tell the mother what hurts, so the mother does not know what to do for him.

Today we will study what a sentence is. Understanding English helps us to communicate better with others.

Teach these points:
1. A sentence is a group of words that expresses a complete thought. Emphasize that a group of words *must* have a complete thought, or it is not a sentence. This group of words is not a sentence: Peter, James, and John disciples of Jesus, even though it has many words.

2. The subject of a sentence tells who or what the sentence is about. This lesson teaches subjects and predicates as the two main sentence parts. Individual words (simple subjects and simple predicates) are taught in the next several lessons.

3. The predicate of a sentence tells what a subject does or is.

4. Every sentence begins with a capital letter and ends with a punctuation mark.

Student Book

A sentence is a group of words that expresses a complete thought. Every sentence has two main parts: A    subject    and a   predicate  . 
 

Every   sentence   tells  who  or what does   or is something. The subject is the part that tells who or what. The predicate is the part that tells what the subject does or is.

In the following sentences, the first part is the subject, and the second part is the predicate.

Daniel / refused the king's meat.

The four young men / were faithful to God.

Every sentence must begin with a capital letter and end with the correct punctuation mark. A sentence usually ends with a period.

Oral Drill

A. Study these subjects and predicates. Tell who or what does or is something. What does the predicate tell about the subject?

Subjects / Predicates

1. The children / were playing happily.
2. The wise man / built his house upon a rock.
3. A large tree / stood in the yard.
4. Sarah and I / picked the beans.
5. Three birds / sat on a fence.

B. Supply a good predicate for each subject.

1. The furry squirrel
2. My little brother

C. Supply a good subject for each predicate.

1. picked up the cans.
2. read us a story.

C. Tell whether these groups of words are sentences.

1. God created man.
2. The first man was Adam.
3. Eve was the first woman.
4. Could not talk with animals.
5. Adam was lonely.
6. A good helper.
7. Created Eve.

(Written Practice problems are similar. I'm getting tired of typing. The final assignment, after identifying and supplying subjects and predicates and dividing an un-punctuated passage into its four short and simple sentences BY identifying the subjects and predicates, is to copy the definition of a sentence.)

As you can see, these two samples are remarkably similar. In both lessons we work with real sentences. We have short lessons, and we have exercises that solidify the concepts. We even copy down the rule at the end of each!

This IS the R&S method, all the way through the diagramming of complex-compound sentences and the teaching of mood, order, number, and tense. You can clear the clutter, clear the decks, ignore the writing assignments, wait until age 10 to start, knock off a few practice problems because you are teaching one student instead of 20, do most of it orally, etc. I do it, and so have many others.

Now for the real secret: I don't think there are a lot of Charlotte Mason grammar books. I think there are educators who TEACH the Charlotte Mason way. I can do it with Harvey's Elementary and Revised Grammar, Warriner's, Rod and Staff, or whatever you've got as long as the concepts are clearly presented and the exercises fit.

3. There's one more thing to do to make your authentic Charlotte Mason grammar studies complete: Apply them to the child's work.

Don't stop copywork/narration/dictation just because the child has begun formal grammar instruction. Use them together. Do not begin to water down the copywork/narration/dictation lessons, because they will likely be pretty advanced by this point! Instead, each day, as you review your student's work help him note the instances of subject/predicate (or whatever the current grammar lesson is). When you assign the narration, ask him to include two instances of (current grammar lesson) within it. Give him a copywork or dictation passage that includes usage of the concept he's learning, and point it out to him. 

His grammar lesson was crystal clear to him, thanks to your teaching and your work together (orally and/or at the blackboard) but incorporating it into his familiar and effective copywork, narration, and dictation makes it come alive for him. He will not forget it.






 

 

 

[Alte Veste Academy]

I would love to use my blog as a "roll up your sleeves" type of platform since I've been on the other side of things, but have come through. However, I don't know what this would look like beyond, "You get up every morning and you teach." I'm not sure how much more blunt you can put it. 

 

I liked your whole post, and I also came from a place of being more relaxed in the early years. I got up every morning and taught but, frankly, days were shorter and more flexible. The snipped quote above is what I would have said when I was transitioning from relaxed to more rigorous (and as a relevant aside, I think this might be a fairly typical transition for someone moving from early years to middle years). But the farther I move along, the more teaching entails.

 

Going from relaxed, maybe step one is get more structured (aka, "You get up every morning and teach."). But step two is a doozy, because it was realize how much I have to learn as a teacher—how humble I am made every single day. You can't teach from a vacuum. So the choice is to get curricula to do the teaching for you or teach yourself how to teach with anything. Because of my personal philosophy and particular reasons for homeschooling, I choose the latter. So on top of showing up every morning to teach my kids (check! LOL), I've got to show up every day to to self-educate, with regards to both content and teaching methods. 

[FO4UR]

I can definitely see how CM helps to provide a liberal education. Call me stupid but liberal and classical are now the same ?

 

 

Please. Educate me :)

 

 

Liberal Education, as in Charlotte Mason's definition of Liberal, is Classical.  The definition of Liberal has shifted through the years.  CM's Liberal Education was a Generous Education, a Feast of Deep and Wide proportions. It was NOT the smattering of everything, but a lot of nothing that we think of as a liberal education today.

 

That's a good example of how CM is misinterpreted and misunderstood in modern context.  Reading Climbing Parnassus sets the stage for reading CM. It's hard to have a discussion about CM b/c the words she used mean different things today than they did in her time.

[TheAutumnOak]

Read Climbing Parnassus.  Read CM's books (at least read book 6). It will become clear.

 

 

Everything we see billed as classical is neoclassical.  CM is one flavor of neoclassical.

 

Classical, at it's most basic level, is a liberal (generous) education based upon Western Ideals (founded in Greek and Latin roots). One can go about doing that in many different ways, and there we see CM, TWTM, MP, and more...  The difference between these flavors of Classical go back to philosophical roots.  Here is where you must understand the history of education b/c words change meaning based upon who is hearing them. CM is most certainly Classical, NeoClassical, in the light of Climbing Parnassus.

 

 

The issue is that people form opinions on things they've never studied for themselves and speak loudly. Others write curriculum without a farthing of understanding of the philosophy that *should* serve as the foundation. It's easy to find products marketed as Classical b/c homeschooling has become a niche market $$$.  CM doesn't ever really boast about being Classical. She spends a great deal of time reminding her readers that children are people, deserving of respect and consideration, and that these little people are hungry for ideas. Her students memorize, recite, and know. These things are not trotted around like a dog and pony show, however. (Hey - these children are PEOPLE.) She understood very well that you train up nothing but a selfish tyrant if you do nothing but memorize facts and practice mental tricks. Cultured people (Kind, generous, caring, hard-working, etc...) must be grown up on ideas, ideas about human nature, and from the first. We cannot expect anything but manipulative con-artists if we use manipulative tactics to shove facts and tricks down the throats of our "students."  Our students will learn more by HOW we teach than WHAT we teach.

 

 

CM gives us insight into how to achieve a Classical Education without so many of the emotionally abusive tactics that were prevalent in Victorian English schools. (Education is an Atmosphere, a Discipline, a Life) That insight is still applicable if we read it with an understanding of the world that CM lived in and therefore the world in which helped form her writing. 

 

I understand and like what you are saying...I don't want you to think I started this thread to put CM in a negative light...Not at all...I just wonder why CM is now a synonym for classical...Her work should stand on its own and not need the brand of classical if that is not what she called herself...

 

[FO4UR]

I understand and like what you are saying...I don't want you to think I started this thread to put CM in a negative light...Not at all...I just wonder why CM is now a synonym for classical...Her work should stand on its own and not need the brand of classical if that is not what she called herself...

 

 

It's not that she or we (whoever we are) are wanting her to be branded as Classical. That said, her actual recommendations, if performed as she states, will produce what we call today a Classical Education.  She's not alive, and has nothing to sell. (However, there ARE those who profit greatly from branding...buyer beware.)

 

 

I'm glad Tibbie posted her long post on the grammar lessons.  Point-in-case.  CM wrote from the assumption that children are going to be force-fed grammar.  She said "Stop! Use REAL books! Show them how and why and make it meaningful!"  However, we come from the assumption that most kids are lucky to know the difference between a noun and a verb. So when she says "relax," we take that to mean "don't teach anything."  We've completely missed the boat b/c we are coming from completely different experiences (and assumptions).  

 

 

That's why I'm encouraging reading Climbing Parnassus & CM's Book 6, and then let's try this discussion again.