Classical Education and CM's Version of it...I have some questions

[Kfamily]

I've just finished reading Consider This by Karen Glass and I really enjoyed it. I feel as if she articulated so well the connection between original classical education and Charlotte Mason's expression of it. I love how it shows that even CM took what she had read/learned about education, and how children learn, and focused on what she deeply felt were the most critical aspects of it. I actually think that the book helped move me back closer to CM, which I'm especially happy about because I'd begun to feel disconnected from it. I do know that I will never fully embrace everything that she advocates, but I do feel that I'm closer to embracing more of her ideas now than I have been lately.

 

ETA: After reading this paragraph over, I think that I should amend this a bit...I think that I may give the impression that I only follow parts of CM when I actually follow/and have followed for many years her ideas and methods quite thoroughly. I don't agree with absolutely everything (as in every single sentence from all of her writings), but I do agree with a great deal of it and Consider This really helped me sort out my ideas and thoughts for my overall education philosophy.

 

There are still some aspects that I'm struggling with and I'm hoping that some of you ladies here will be interested in discussing your thoughts on them with me and other points too. :)

 

 

In Consider This, Karen Glass shows us that one of the most essential elements to a classical education is in developing synthetic thinking (vs. analytic) and how CM's methods and ideas support this. I agree with much of what I read and I support the emphasis placed on children needing their knowledge to begin with a focus on the whole rather than analytically breaking knowledge into parts. I also agree with a wide spread of books and the importance of children needing their knowledge to be connected to them personally (poetic knowledge).

 

(And I apologize to those who have read the book and feel as if this very brief summary of what I took from the book doesn't full represent it. I'm trying not to become to heavily invested in writing out a review...I have to cook dinner in a few minutes...I might should have waited to post this, but I was so eager to talk about it. :))

 

Here are some questions I have so far:

 

I understand and agree with the idea that synthesis should be the primary method of dealing with knowledge for a substantial number of years, but I'm not sure if I agree that it should extend to 15. I know this may have been an approximate year, but, in general, that puts it into the last three years of high school. I'm wondering if the introduction of analytical thinking could begin sooner than this...maybe 12...Year 6 or 7. For example, how would Bloom's taxonomy fit with this? Would I use only the synthesis and knowledge sections, as well as whatever other sections did not break knowledge into parts, only for these earlier years? Should Socratic dialogues not be included until the upper years are reached? I can see how this may need to wait, but I would like to introduce it too a little earlier...again age 12 or so.

 

I'm combining resources here, but I've also read that the progymnasmata was considered an overlap between the grammar and rhetoric stage. If the progymnasmata contains exercises of writing which include analysis as well as synthesis and the rhetoric stage usually begins in the last years of high school, wouldn't it be necessary to begin introducing analytical thinking earlier since at least some of the progymnasmata exercises would have to begin before the rhetoric stage? Does this make sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kfamily]

If anyone has read this book, I would love to talk about it. :)

[dauphin]

Haven't read it yet and although I'd like to I'm on a bigger Montessori kick than CM atm. But since you raised the issue I'd like to highlight the synthetic vs analytical thinking delineation. The parts of CM that resonated for me fit with Montessori (respect for the child, self-education, etc) but in retrospect are those some of the broader philosophies and not the methodologies? But I began to realize that the most ill-fitting parts of CM were the ones that seemed whole-to-parts driven and as I've learned about myself and my DD I think we are both far more parts-to-whole learners. I've often wondered if this was common and my informal survey on the CM FB group sort of supported it :). Does it need to be so clearly one way of learning or the other?

[Kfamily]

Yes, this is part of what has me concerned. I'm trying to resolve my thoughts on this, so that I can better decide where I stand on these issues. I feel as if I do support and understand the need for the emphasis in the early years and a bit beyond to be on synthetic thinking and poetic knowledge, but I'm wondering how soon to introduce the analytical thinking. For now I'm not agreeing with the idea of waiting until the later upper years before beginning this. I really think that I would like to begin this at the very beginning of the upper years (Year 7) and maybe even dabble lightly in it in some of the earlier years, but without compromising the focus on the synthetic thinking.  And I can see how those who learn better parts to whole may have issues with this. I'm not sure what I think about this yet.

 

 

P.S. I did teach at a Montessori school just after I had graduated and did learn so much about education from the head teachers at my school and the little bit of summer Montessori training I had received.

[Kfamily]

This is very interesting and provides something to think about too:

 

http://www.charlottemasoninstitute.org/a-book-review-by-dr-john-thorley/

[8filltheheart]

I haven't read the book, but from experience with my kids, age is not a determining factor. The analytical abilities of #1, 4, and 5 and what they were ready for from very young ages cannot compare at all with #2,3,6, and 7 (#8....she just turned 5, but I think she is going to surpass the former group.) They all have their own abilities, but some stand out as significantly advanced compared to others their ages.

 

As a homeschooler you have the ability to simply gauge what you do based on the abilities of the individual. My #4 was ready for complex proofs at a young age. My current 13 yr old is just getting to the point where designing a proof makes sense. My 10th grader had greater insight into analyzing poetry in 7th grade than I did as the adult teacher. ;)

 

FWIW, even very young kids are able to take information all the way through Bloom's taxonomy. Consider what it means through a concrete example: a child is given a stack of Legos, a booklet with directions, taught how to construct an operational Lego Technic/Dacta (meaning that it isn't just a shape,but one with working gears, etc and leads to an operational form of some sort.) Give that child more Legos with more pieces and no booklet, can the child create another sophisticated, original "technic?" Depending on the child, yes or no. But some kids are definitely going to be able to move from understanding how to construct, to synthesizing the process across different pieces, to ultimately creating an original functioning unit.

 

All analysis, synthesis, evaluation HAS to start from base knowledge. You cannot analyze or synthesize that which you do not understand. The depth of that ability grows with knowledge and exposure. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the first place.

 

As another non-educational example, people who play strategy games with multiple mental step strategies definitely "think" differently than people who don't. If you do and play games with people who can't think that way, you know what I mean. It is a very obvious difference. (If you don't or haven't, that analogy will probably not be appreciated. ;) )

 

Kids who grow up thinking deeply about things have an ability to grow that ability from a young age. Kids that don't think deeply about subjects and just skim across the surface of them (just the knowledge and basic understanding) i think are at a disadvantage forever b/c some things bloom and grow when nurtured from a young age. Even my second group of kids are analytical thinkers, it just developed and grew in a different way. They won't ever be physicists like my ds, but they are more creative and artistic and go about things from a different perspective.

 

ETA: think about the different outcomes of unique Lego creations. Kids the exact same age will have huge variants in the level of complexity of design and integration of working components. That is sort of the equivalent of variances in analytical ability. All of them have it to some degree, but some have further developed abilities than others.

 

Also, I was thinking in terms of just general teaching. One way to teach is to simply give information. Another way is to constantly ask guided questions. I personally think asking guided questions like Socartic dialogue leads to more complexity of thinking......and this can be done from toddlerhood. ;)

[8filltheheart]

Dp

[Another Lynn]

I read Consider This.  I thought it was fantastic.  I felt like it helped me understand CM perhaps for the first time, though I thought I was following her 10 years ago.  I did not agree with the review posted on CMI. 

 

As far as age 15 goes.... as I re-skim that section of the book, Glass says "There is never going to be an exact age when a learner is ready to move past synthetic learning into analytic thinking...."  She later says the student will move naturally into the analytic stage.  I think especially for a child who has been taught (as yours have) for their entire life with a CM influence, that natural movement could come younger than one who isn't taught in this manner until he/she is older - that's my own personal opinion.  So, imho, I wouldn't worry about a particular age.  jmho. 

[Kfamily]

I read Consider This.  I thought it was fantastic.  I felt like it helped me understand CM perhaps for the first time, though I thought I was following her 10 years ago.  I did not agree with the review posted on CMI. 

 

As far as age 15 goes.... as I re-skim that section of the book, Glass says "There is never going to be an exact age when a learner is ready to move past synthetic learning into analytic thinking...."  She later says the student will move naturally into the analytic stage.  I think especially for a child who has been taught (as yours have) for their entire life with a CM influence, that natural movement could come younger than one who isn't taught in this manner until he/she is older - that's my own personal opinion.  So, imho, I wouldn't worry about a particular age.  jmho. 

 

Thank you, this makes sense. I see what you mean about children new to CM may need a segment of time before moving from synthesis to analysis and those who have grown up with it may not. This really helps a lot!!

 

And as 8FilltheHeart points out, readiness will also differ from individual child to individual child.

 

This is really helping me sort out my thoughts. :)

[Kfamily]

All analysis, synthesis, evaluation HAS to start from base knowledge. You cannot analyze or synthesize that which you do not understand. The depth of that ability grows with knowledge and exposure. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the first place.

 

 

 

This is really helpful.

[Kfamily]

 

ETA: think about the different outcomes of unique Lego creations. Kids the exact same age will have huge variants in the level of complexity of design and integration of working components. That is sort of the equivalent of variances in analytical ability. All of them have it to some degree, but some have further developed abilities than others.

 

Also, I was thinking in terms of just general teaching. One way to teach is to simply give information. Another way is to constantly ask guided questions. I personally think asking guided questions like Socartic dialogue leads to more complexity of thinking......and this can be done from toddlerhood. ;)

 

 This helps too.

 

(bolded is mine)

 

I like this approach too and both girls have proven to enjoy it over knowledge/comprehension type questions as well. :) They actually complain if the work doesn't allow for their thoughts and opinions. (And they both are highly opinionated!)

[Mrs. A]

I really think that it will always be individual. Like mentioned above you can't point to a specific age when every person will be ready for analytic thinking. I suppose there could be a range of what's "normal", but then again it's probably not best to think even in age ranges because it's still too easy to get stuck on what a child is  supposed  to be doing within a given age range instead of actually seeing the child you have in front of you. 

[Mrs. A]

And fwiw, I think Dr. Thorley's review totally missed the point. He's quibbling about definitions and fails to see the potential this book has to help people see how and where CM and her methods fit into the classical tradition. 

 

eta: I know that definitions are important, but the things that Dr. Thorley takes issue with are not at the heart of the matter, and that's why I didn't care for his review. 

[FO4UR]

Coming to this thread late...

 

I think we can compare the leap from synthetic to analytic to the leap from preschool to grade 1.  There is no defining line.  Most children will step their toes into the next developmental stage early in some aspects (but not all aspects).  Ex.  CM is strict about no formal lessons before age 6, but then encourages babies of age 2 to play with and know their letters. I think we can apply the same attitude to Age 15.  CM would encourage 12, 13, 14 yo to think analytically about the world, but she would not require it.  15yo is the age when most kids should be able to handle the requirement.

 

 

By all means, tailor your homeschool to you children.  That said, don't be surprised if you have a younger child who can handle a Socratic discussion about some things but not others. Go with the flow.  Encourage, don't require until age 15.

 

[Bluegoat]

I'm not sure that I think this distinction is entirely true to CM.

 

However that being said, I am put in mind of university education.

 

Even within a particular disapline, I think an undergraduate degree in I think what would be described here as synthetic.  Largely the student is learning systems and ways of working and conventions, and it is supposed to be broad enough that what is learned is contextualized.  It is only as students get to graduate and postgraduate work that they really get so deep into a specific area that they begin to leave behind other subjects, and that is more by necessaity than because it is ideal.  It is also only then that they are able to look at the conventional forms and structures of the disapline in a critical way. 

 

It's a bit like if you are looking to do a renovation on a house that potentially involves structural modification - you really need to understand why it is the way it is before you start removing bits or adding on loads.

 

I think its significant to notice the extent to which even people who are university educated these days can really be very ignorant, because they simply don't have enough bredth of knowledge to make connections between ideas.  And very often they are not even aware that there are different ways of thinking "logically" in different subjects, because the nature of the subject demands it.

 

From my perspective, I don't see really that it would be wrong to teach children "analytical" subjects - you would have to take out subjects that CM taught herself, and she doesn't advocate spoon-feeding connections to children,  But I thinkit is unlikely that many children before about 15 are going to have enough of a big picture sense of the world to begin to do any sort of real specialization.  The humanities are going to remain closely connected, languages are probably going to be best learned in terms of actually reading texts rather than some sort of attempt to become a philologist, and even the sciences which in many cases might seem the most likely things to offer seperatly may need to be carefully balanced to avoid making them into mere abstractions.

 

 

[Ewe Mama]

Listening in...

[FO4UR]

 

  But I thinkit is unlikely that many children before about 15 are going to have enough of a big picture sense of the world to begin to do any sort of real specialization.  

 

 

Yes.  This is very true.  

[KSinNS]

I can't find the quote right now, but I was reading Towards a philosophy of education and the way I understood Charlotte Mason was that you feed a kid's mind with ideas through literary sources, and have them narrate to you to fix the ideas in their minds. You don't force your own interpretation on them. But the assumption is that after narrating, the child begins to digest the ideas, and make connections themselves. So it's not that the kid isn't doing analytical thinking, it's that the kid does it in their own time and space, as their abilities and interest allows.

[Kfamily]

CM would encourage 12, 13, 14 yo to think analytically about the world, but she would not require it.  15yo is the age when most kids should be able to handle the requirement.

 

 

By all means, tailor your homeschool to you children.  That said, don't be surprised if you have a younger child who can handle a Socratic discussion about some things but not others. Go with the flow.  Encourage, don't require until age 15.

 

Thank you! Yes, this was exactly how I was seeing this, but you worded this perfectly! This was why I kept thinking that it should be, at least, introduced by age 12 or so.

[Kfamily]

I can't find the quote right now, but I was reading Towards a philosophy of education and the way I understood Charlotte Mason was that you feed a kid's mind with ideas through literary sources, and have them narrate to you to fix the ideas in their minds. You don't force your own interpretation on them. But the assumption is that after narrating, the child begins to digest the ideas, and make connections themselves. So it's not that the kid isn't doing analytical thinking, it's that the kid does it in their own time and space, as their abilities and interest allows.

 

Yes, I agree, I like thinking of it this way too.

[Faithr]

I have nothing to add. I have not read the book though I really want to! I just wanted to pipe in and say that Dr. Thorley's review irked me because he kept referring to the author so familiarly as Karen instead of Ms. Glass. It made the whole tone seem pedantic and condescending to me. In contrast hevery carefully gets called Dr. John Thorley. Anyway, just thought I would vent about that little annoyance.

[FO4UR]

I have nothing to add. I have not read the book though I really want to! I just wanted to pipe in and say that Dr. Thorley's review irked me because he kept referring to the author so familiarly as Karen instead of Ms. Glass. It made the whole tone seem pedantic and condescending to me. In contrast hevery carefully gets called Dr. John Thorley. Anyway, just thought I would vent about that little annoyance.

 

 

The lowly, female homeschool mom.  Pshaw!!!!  Ms.Glass is a classy lady.  

 

Excuse me, Dr, Thorley, but your bias is showing.

[Beth in Mint Hill]

I can't wait to read Karen Glass' book! I've been hearing about it, but didn't have time to even think about it. I'm ordering it right now, so I hope this thread doesn't get lost before I can start reading! :)

 

Over the years I've always felt closely aligned with the Charlotte Mason philosophy. In fact, For the Children's Sake was one of the first homeschooling books I read--and is still one of my favorite books! But I kept falling into the "classical" homeschooling circles, because of my love for Latin, logic, etc. I always balked at the 'ages and stages' emphasis--and kept thinking, "Why doesn't someone balance this out and write a book showing the overlap between the two approaches?"

 

So  :hurray:  here I go, to order Consider This.

[Bluegoat]

I have nothing to add. I have not read the book though I really want to! I just wanted to pipe in and say that Dr. Thorley's review irked me because he kept referring to the author so familiarly as Karen instead of Ms. Glass. It made the whole tone seem pedantic and condescending to me. In contrast hevery carefully gets called Dr. John Thorley. Anyway, just thought I would vent about that little annoyance.

 

The whole review was in an informal style though, and I really didn't get the impression that he was being condescending.  It isn't odd that the attribution to the article used his full name and title. 

 

What he did do was take her ideas seriously and gave the kind of response one would expect from a historian of ideas, which is, I think, a little more rigorous than what popular books are normally subjected to.  You can't in the academic world just come up with a theory that sounds plausible about how certain ideas are linked, you have to show or at least have some real reason to think they are in fact linked historically, that Mason was really thinking about something like what we mean by "classical education".  I think though that is quite difficult to show, and it isn't even an obvious thing to surmise. 

 

I am quite surprised that people don't take his view more seriously - you could hardly have someone who would be in a better position to talk about links between classical education and Charlotte Mason.

[FO4UR]

The whole review was in an informal style though, and I really didn't get the impression that he was being condescending.  It isn't odd that the attribution to the article used his full name and title. 

 

What he did do was take her ideas seriously and gave the kind of response one would expect from a historian of ideas, which is, I think, a little more rigorous than what popular books are normally subjected to.  You can't in the academic world just come up with a theory that sounds plausible about how certain ideas are linked, you have to show or at least have some real reason to think they are in fact linked historically, that Mason was really thinking about something like what we mean by "classical education".  I think though that is quite difficult to show, and it isn't even an obvious thing to surmise. 

 

I am quite surprised that people don't take his view more seriously - you could hardly have someone who would be in a better position to talk about links between classical education and Charlotte Mason.

 

CM most certainly was a classical educator.  Unless you have a narrow view of classical, meaning something like CC, I don't see where there is even an argument.  Her books are full of quotes from both Classic and (her) contemporary philosophers/educators.  She applies things differently, yes.

 

CM didn't believe every child would climb Parnassus (Classical Language mastery was reserved for the academically inclined.), but she did believe that every student deserved a liberal (or generous) education that is the fruit of those who have climbed Parnassus.

[Faithr]

I still haven't read Karen Glass' book.  I just got it last night, but I think the real weakness in John's review (ha ha!) is that he asserts that there wasn't really a focus on the learner's relationship with knowledge in Ancient and Medieval times.  He doesn't back that up.  I however have read books about this very topic.  I'll link to one right now. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/what-is-poetic-knowledge (well, it is an article about the book).  Another place to read about this relationship is the essay written by a classics professor at the end of the book A Little Way of Homeschooling.  

 

But I still shouldn't say anything more because I have not read Consider This!

 

 

[Kfamily]

I'll link to one right now. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/what-is-poetic-knowledge (well, it is an article about the book).

 

I really enjoyed reading this article. Thanks for sharing it.

[Bluegoat]

CM most certainly was a classical educator.  Unless you have a narrow view of classical, meaning something like CC, I don't see where there is even an argument.  Her books are full of quotes from both Classic and (her) contemporary philosophers/educators.  She applies things differently, yes.

 

CM didn't believe every child would climb Parnassus (Classical Language mastery was reserved for the academically inclined.), but she did believe that every student deserved a liberal (or generous) education that is the fruit of those who have climbed Parnassus.

 

No, I don't have a narrow view of classical education, in fact I think it is broader than what is generally found among modern classical or neoclassical educators, and that may be the origin of  the difference in my thinking. 

 

My university background is in classics, and in fact unlike a lot of modern classics departments, the one I studied in did not at all confine itself to ancient Greece and Rome, or even the anient world, it saw the western tradition as inter-related and properly within its scope.  If people want to say that Mason was an educator in the western (classical) tradition, that is absolutly true, and doesn't depend at all on her quotting classical literature herself.  It is also a very general statement and tells us even less than saying she was a 19th century English educator and that her thinking comes out of that context. 

 

What she wasn't was a neoclassical educator, and I don't think there is any reason to think that she saw herself as somehow reforming something called "the classical tradition".  She just didn't talk about that,.   And really I am not sure how she could have, because there are many mututally exclusive and contradictry ideas found within that tradition.  Which "classical tradition" was she going to reform or restore? 

 

What she did talk about was deriving her views on education from the nature of children - her experience of them - and from Christianity, neither of which are exclusive to the classical tradition.  Those things can inform any education, in any part of the world, in any cultural tradition.

 

To my mind, talking about Mason in relation to neoclassical education  is very similar to talking about her relation to Montessori education.

[ElizaG]

CM most certainly was a classical educator. Unless you have a narrow view of classical, meaning something like CC, I don't see where there is even an argument. Her books are full of quotes from both Classic and (her) contemporary philosophers/educators. She applies things differently, yes.

CC is based on the Sayers stages, and it's my understanding that the author of Consider This rejects that model as historically inauthentic. So this exclusive attitude goes both ways. :huh:

 

Karen Glass's own definition seems to be most similar to the educational ideals expressed by David Hicks in Norms and Nobility, which emphasizes moral development through the study of inspiring literature. She argues that Charlotte Mason was aiming for something very close to these ideals, and thus her method is more truly "classical" than other methods that go by that name. But this begs the question of the value of Hicks' writings as a benchmark for classical education. (ETA: Did he intend his book to be used that way? Not sure... )

 

Ironically, one problem with her definition is that it's rather narrow, as John Thorley points out in his review. In particular, it doesn't match up very well with the bulk of historic classical schools and colleges, which haven't been known so much for their morally uplifting qualities as for their ability to pass along a body of useful skills for leadership and communication. There might be a case for saying that those schools were "less Christian" (or some other ideal) than those of Charlotte Mason, but IMO it makes no sense to say that they're "less classical."

 

Going a bit deeper, I'd question the apparent assumption that "classical education" is a set of abstract ideals that can be understood in isolation from their historical context. From everything I've learned about it, it's very much an applied method, involving a set of texts, exercises, and practices that are passed down from teacher to student through the generations. There have been significant variations over time and place -- but this is very different from one individual taking what he or she sees as the "essential spirit of the thing," and constructing a whole new method to apply it. One is an organic development; the other (for better or worse) is a radical reform.

 

I think it's also tempting for modern homeschoolers -- starved, as we generally are, of historical knowledge -- to read too much into Charlotte Mason's references to various thinkers from the past. Reformers and innovators who cite Plato are a dime a dozen. And an education that's partially inspired by the writings of "classic philosophers" doesn't automatically equal a "classical education."

 

So, yes, there is room for argument here. Personally, I don't really care if CM followers consider her method to be classical -- the term is used in so many ways in homeschool circles already -- but the suggestion that it's "more classical than the others" is really overreaching, IMO. I think the promoters should have quit while they were ahead. :huh:

[Mystie]

David Hicks did write the introduction to Consider This. :) I think Consider This is not only an excellent summary of Charlotte Mason's principles of education (most books summarize her practices and exclude much talk of her principles), but also a more approachable version of Norms and Nobility (disclaimer: which I love).

 

I am not sure how old your kids are, but your questions are exactly the same ones I had when mine were all 8-and-under. As we hit 10-and-up (and my oldest is now 11 1/2 and I'm planning 7th grade), I definitely see that there is no hard and fast line and there's definitely no point at which the analytical pushes out the poetic, synthetic view (hopefully!). 

 

I teach very Socraticly. When I help my kids with math or Latin or anything, I ask them questions and never tell them answers. I make them think it through. It's tedious, but it's valuable. That is entirely different in my mind to a Socratic discussion on literature, which I have tried to do with 14-15 year olds and it is like pulling teeth even at that age (or was with them). You can't have a grand conversation until you have enough experience and enough "relations" (as CM would say) to have a valid opinion you can defend logically. So, in 7 & 8 we'll start logic, but I doubt it will be until high school that conversation will bear the fruit of all those relations, connections, experiences, and logical backbones.  

 

For me, mostly, that means I must remind myself to not be disappointed at lackluster attempts at conversation. Start them, but don't be surprised if the child ends up sounding like a 10-year-old boy if that's what he is. :) It's easy to set up grand expectations that are dashed by reality, at least for me. 

 

Here are more thoughts I've written out about Consider This:

 

http://www.simplyconvivial.com/2014/consider-this-education-book

http://www.simplyconvivial.com/2014/classical-homeschooling-components

[Kfamily]

 

 

I am not sure how old your kids are, but your questions are exactly the same ones I had when mine were all 8-and-under. As we hit 10-and-up (and my oldest is now 11 1/2 and I'm planning 7th grade), I definitely see that there is no hard and fast line and there's definitely no point at which the analytical pushes out the poetic, synthetic view (hopefully!). 

 

 

I wasn't sure if you meant this part for me or the poster above your post... :) Just in case it's me, I have two daughters with one being in 6th grade and the other is a junior in high school. After I read the book, some thoughts/questions were spinning around in my head and I posted this question to see what others who had read the book might be thinking. I was thinking of it in general education theory terms rather than specifically for my own two girls. Although, my younger daughter does fit very neatly in the she's-ready-for-more-but-this-is-not-the-same-level-as-her-sister-area.

 

We use narrations to gently change the style and type of discussions we have as each year passes. With my older daughter, I began including more primary sources, Socratic style discussions and teaching from a humanities style approach rather than separating history and literature around Year 7. I'll continue with this approach with my younger daughter too.

 

I'm writing a curriculum which is based primarily on Charlotte Mason, but which also includes some aspects of other methods and ideas from classical education. I like to read widely and keep my thoughts about curriculum and education as well-rounded as possible. And I love to read/have discussions here about it too. You ladies (and some gentlemen :)) are so wonderful to interact with. I only wish that you all lived just down the street from me.

[Bluegoat]

David Hicks did write the introduction to Consider This. :) I think Consider This is not only an excellent summary of Charlotte Mason's principles of education (most books summarize her practices and exclude much talk of her principles), but also a more approachable version of Norms and Nobility (disclaimer: which I love).

 

I am not sure how old your kids are, but your questions are exactly the same ones I had when mine were all 8-and-under. As we hit 10-and-up (and my oldest is now 11 1/2 and I'm planning 7th grade), I definitely see that there is no hard and fast line and there's definitely no point at which the analytical pushes out the poetic, synthetic view (hopefully!). 

 

I teach very Socraticly. When I help my kids with math or Latin or anything, I ask them questions and never tell them answers. I make them think it through. It's tedious, but it's valuable. That is entirely different in my mind to a Socratic discussion on literature, which I have tried to do with 14-15 year olds and it is like pulling teeth even at that age (or was with them). You can't have a grand conversation until you have enough experience and enough "relations" (as CM would say) to have a valid opinion you can defend logically. So, in 7 & 8 we'll start logic, but I doubt it will be until high school that conversation will bear the fruit of all those relations, connections, experiences, and logical backbones.  

 

For me, mostly, that means I must remind myself to not be disappointed at lackluster attempts at conversation. Start them, but don't be surprised if the child ends up sounding like a 10-year-old boy if that's what he is. :) It's easy to set up grand expectations that are dashed by reality, at least for me. 

 

Here are more thoughts I've written out about Consider This:

 

http://www.simplyconvivial.com/2014/consider-this-education-book

http://www.simplyconvivial.com/2014/classical-homeschooling-components

 

I completely agree that there is very little available that talks in any in-depth way about Mason's principles, or really which look at her views systematically.  Most of what is available is directed to implementing a program for young children, and IMO many of them are actually misleading.  The best I've found has been When Children Love to Learn, but it isn't really a sytematic study.

 

So any book that makes some reasonable effort at doing so is well worth it I think.  And if we are lucky perhaps there will be some responses to it.