Classical education history book recommendations?

[Momto4inSoCal]

I've read The Well Trained Mind, Climbing Parnassus, The Core, Dorothy Sayer Lost Tools of Learning and I've listened to all of the free audio clips from Circe institute. I feel like I have a basic understanding of the modern interpretation of Classical Education but I would like to understand the Medieval model and the Ancient Greek model. I can't really seem to find books that talk about that, most books seem to focus on the Neo-Classical model. I'm a whole to parts learner so I really want the whole picture.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Momto4inSoCal

[Hunter]

You might want to read Quintillian, and get it right from the horse's mouth.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilian

[ElizaG]

Well, keep in mind that medieval and Renaissance education were quite different in the way they approached the trivium.  The Renaissance way was more "classical" (that was sort of the point of the whole effort  ;) ).  

 

Copying this from an old thread (Define "classical education"); it includes a link to a good resource for understanding the medieval system:

 

-----------

 

I'm not a Sayers fan, but in fairness, she didn't describe her model as "classical" (or even "classically inspired").   She called it "neo-mediaeval," and said that it was loosely based on "what the men of the Middle Ages supposed to be the object and the right order of the educative process."  I don't know who started calling it a model for classical education.  (Just as a guess, it might have been Douglas Wilson in the 1980s.)

 

This use of the term is doubly problematic, because the particular type of medieval education she's describing -- the kind that could be found e.g. at the University of Paris in the 13th century -- isn't even generally considered "classical" by historians of education.   These schools aimed to teach the liberal arts, but gave short shrift to the study of ancient languages and literature.   Greek was rarely studied at all, and classical Latin literature was largely passed over in favor of Church Latin.   This neglect of the classics is something that people like Erasmus and St. Thomas More were reacting against in the Renaissance.

 

Here's someone's dissertation on the subject, with copious references:  The arts course at medieval universities with special reference to grammar and rhetoric (Louis John Paetow, 1910)

 

----

 

In the Renaissance, the writings of Quintilian and other ancients were rediscovered, and much of the older way of teaching the trivium was restored.   In particular, secondary students were expected to focus on the study of literature, for the sake of building eloquence and developing character.  Philosophy went back to being an advanced subject for tertiary students, as it had been in classical times.    In general terms, the order of studies went back to grammar -> rhetoric -> dialectic.

 

I don't think there are any popular recent books that explain this clearly.  The "neo-classical" movement seems to have a blind spot in the area of Renaissance education, which is surprising, since it pretty much defined Western classical schooling from the 15th until the late 19th century.  But here are a few that might be helpful:

 

 

Orators and Philosophers and The Liberal Arts Tradition, both by Bruce Kimball (not available online, but might be available in a library)

 

Classical Education in Britain 1500-1900 by Martin Lowther Clarke (ditto)

 

Renaissance writings on education:  The Book of the Courtier by Castiglione; The Schoolmaster by Ascham; the 1599 Ratio Studiorum; others online and in this anthology

 

Principles of Jesuit Education in Practice by Rev. Francis P. Donnelly, SJ

 

 

Hope that is of some use!    :001_smile:

Edited March 13, 2016 by ElizaG

[Another Lynn]

You might look at the description of Consider This by Karen Glass (one of AmblesideOnline's founders) to see if it interests you.  It may not give you the specific history you're looking for, but she does analyze their purpose and come to some conclusions that are a bit different than neo-classicists you've already read.  I really enjoyed her book!

 

ETA:  http://www.amazon.com/Consider-This-Charlotte-Classical-Tradition/dp/1500808032/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457893909&sr=1-1&keywords=consider+this+karen+glass

Edited March 13, 2016 by Another Lynn

[Momto4inSoCal]

You might want to read Quintillian, and get it right from the horse's mouth.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilian

 

Thanks! I was able to find Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory for free on google books! 

 

You might look at the description of Consider This by Karen Glass (one of AmblesideOnline's founders) to see if it interests you.  It may not give you the specific history you're looking for, but she does analyze their purpose and come to some conclusions that are a bit different than neo-classicists you've already read.  I really enjoyed her book!

 

ETA:  http://www.amazon.com/Consider-This-Charlotte-Classical-Tradition/dp/1500808032/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457893909&sr=1-1&keywords=consider+this+karen+glass

 

I actually have this book on my list of books to read but as I've been going through all of these books it bothered me that I'm learning about different interpretations rather than learning what the original version is. I would like to learn what the history of classical education and how we have arrived at the place we are at in regards to Neo-Classical education. I understand that there have been many changes and there probably isn't a "true" version of classical education so that is why I've decided the only way to really understand it is to learn the history and learn when and why the changes have taken place. At that point I can re-evaluate the books I have read and my feeling on them and continue down my list. 

 

Well, keep in mind that medieval and Renaissance education were quite different in the way they approached the trivium.  The Renaissance way was more "classical" (that was sort of the point of the whole effort  ;) ).  

 

Copying this from an old thread (Define "classical education"); it includes a link to a good resource for understanding the medieval system:

 

-----------

 

I'm not a Sayers fan, but in fairness, she didn't describe her model as "classical" (or even "classically inspired").   She called it "neo-mediaeval," and said that it was loosely based on "what the men of the Middle Ages supposed to be the object and the right order of the educative process."  I don't know who started calling it a model for classical education.  (Just as a guess, it might have been Douglas Wilson in the 1980s.)

 

This use of the term is doubly problematic, because the particular type of medieval education she's describing -- the kind that could be found e.g. at the University of Paris in the 13th century -- isn't even generally considered "classical" by historians of education.   These schools aimed to teach the liberal arts, but gave short shrift to the study of ancient languages and literature.   Greek was rarely studied at all, and classical Latin literature was largely passed over in favor of Church Latin.   This neglect of the classics is something that people like Erasmus and St. Thomas More were reacting against in the Renaissance.

 

Here's someone's dissertation on the subject, with copious references:  The arts course at medieval universities with special reference to grammar and rhetoric (Louis John Paetow, 1910)

 

----

 

In the Renaissance, the writings of Quintilian and other ancients were rediscovered, and much of the older way of teaching the trivium was restored.   In particular, secondary students were expected to focus on the study of literature, for the sake of building eloquence and developing character.  Philosophy went back to being an advanced subject for tertiary students, as it had been in classical times.    In general terms, the order of studies went back to grammar -> rhetoric -> dialectic.

 

I don't think there are any popular recent books that explain this clearly.  The "neo-classical" movement seems to have a blind spot in the area of Renaissance education, which is surprising, since it pretty much defined Western classical schooling from the 15th until the late 19th century.  But here are a few that might be helpful:

 

 

Orators and Philosophers and The Liberal Arts Tradition, both by Bruce Kimball (not available online, but might be available in a library)

 

Classical Education in Britain 1500-1900 by Martin Lowther Clarke (ditto)

 

Renaissance writings on education:  The Book of the Courtier by Castiglione; The Schoolmaster by Ascham; the 1599 Ratio Studiorum; others online and in this anthology

 

Principles of Jesuit Education in Practice by Rev. Francis P. Donnelly, SJ

 

 

Hope that is of some use!    :001_smile:

 

Thank you! This is really helpful! I think of all the books I've read Climbing Parnassus was the most helpful and he did talk about Greek and Latin being center to the classical education. I've also read (not sure where, I really need to be better about taking notes) that the Jesuits had a big part in keeping classical education alive through the ages but I didn't understand what their form of education looked like. I've recently read Abolition of Man which peaked my interest in the reforms that were taking place at C.S. Lewis time and that brought me to progressive education reform. Ultimately though I'm trying to understand what feels like a lot of pieces of a picture and I would like to be able to put all the pieces together if that makes any sense. 

[ElizaG]

 I've also read (not sure where, I really need to be better about taking notes) that the Jesuits had a big part in keeping classical education alive through the ages but I didn't understand what their form of education looked like. I've recently read Abolition of Man which peaked my interest in the reforms that were taking place at C.S. Lewis time and that brought me to progressive education reform.

The Jesuits really just took up what they saw as the best practices of Renaissance education, and developed a system of schooling and teacher training that was used throughout Europe and the New World.   It was still being followed, much as described in the Ratio Studiorum, until the 19th century - or even the 20th in some places. 

 

From what I've seen, though, "neo-classical" educators, even Catholics, haven't drawn directly on this tradition.   Kolbe Academy calls their pedagogy "Ignatian," but that seems to refer mainly to the spirituality of St. Ignatius, rather than to the traditional methods of Jesuit schools.  Their current curriculum is a mish-mash of other things:  parochial school texts, Great Books, progymnasmata (taken straight from the ancients, rather than the Christian tradition), and so on. 

 

It seems to me that Reformed Protestant groups, such as Veritas Press, have done much more in the way of drawing on their own heritage.   I don't know why Catholics -- or, for that matter, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Episcopalians -- haven't done the same with the variants of classical education that were taught in their schools and colleges.   Perhaps Congregationalism and its offshoots have been such dominant streams in American thought and education, they've sort of drowned out the others?   But there's some very interesting history there.   Again, though, I don't know of a clear overview.   It would probably be necessary to do some digging. 

 

The English classical schools were a different stream again.  For one thing, they were very conservative.  They didn't even start teaching English writing, as a subject, until around 1900.   Students would learn to write by trying to translate a Latin or Greek text into the best possible English.  There was also an unusually strong emphasis on the writing of Latin and Greek verse as a sort of mental discipline, which I think was still going in C.S. Lewis's day.   Again, I don't see anyone in the mainstream of homeschooling trying to draw on these methods.   Which is surprising, because they seem to have produced many of the great writers of the English language.

 

I wish there was a book that would give the big picture about all of this.   It's taken me years to get any sense of it.  Until then, it was just as you say... lots of little pieces.   

 

Anyway, happy reading!  :001_smile:

 

 

ETA: removed extraneous matter ;-)

Edited March 13, 2016 by ElizaG

[Momto4inSoCal]

The Jesuits really just took up what they saw as the best practices of Renaissance education, and developed a system of schooling and teacher training that was used throughout Europe and the New World.   It was still being followed, much as described in the Ratio Studiorum, until the 19th century - or even the 20th in some places. 

 

From what I've seen, though, "neo-classical" educators, even Catholics, haven't drawn directly on this tradition.   Kolbe Academy calls their pedagogy "Ignatian," but that seems to refer mainly to the spirituality of St. Ignatius, rather than to the traditional methods of Jesuit schools.  Their current curriculum is a mish-mash of other things:  parochial school texts, Great Books, progymnasmata (taken straight from the ancients, rather than the Christian tradition), and so on. 

 

It seems to me that Reformed Protestant groups, such as Veritas Press, have done much more in the way of drawing on their own heritage.   I don't know why Catholics -- or, for that matter, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Episcopalians -- haven't done the same with the variants of classical education that were taught in their schools and colleges.   Perhaps Congregationalism and its offshoots have been such dominant streams in American thought and education, they've sort of drowned out the others?   But there's some very interesting history there.   Again, though, I don't know of a clear overview.   It would probably be necessary to do some digging. 

 

The English classical schools were a different stream again.  For one thing, they were very conservative.  They didn't even start teaching English writing, as a subject, until around 1900.   Students would learn to write by trying to translate a Latin or Greek text into the best possible English.  There was also an unusually strong emphasis on the writing of Latin and Greek verse as a sort of mental discipline, which I think was still going in C.S. Lewis's day.   Again, I don't see anyone in the mainstream of homeschooling trying to draw on these methods.   Which is surprising, because they seem to have produced many of the great writers of the English language.

 

I wish there was a book that would give the big picture about all of this.   It's taken me years to get any sense of it.  Until then, it was just as you say... lots of little pieces.   

 

Anyway, happy reading!  :001_smile:

 

 

ETA: removed extraneous matter ;-)

 

I sort of think along the lines of the bolded statement. I have these two books on my ever growing list to read: 

Left Back: A Century of Battles over School Reform American Education: A History

I'm hoping they answer some of my questions over the last hundred years of change in the American school system. 

 

Well I'm almost all the way through Ratio Studiorum and it really is quite different from any description of NeoClassical  education. It's interesting that the grammar phase seems to literally mean you learn grammar. The most noticeably lacking is the strong emphasis on Latin. While most neoclassical books suggest learning latin isn't until much older and there is no mention of translating ancient works in any of the books I've read and the suggestion generally seems to be to teach it when they are older. The Jesuits seemed to really immerse the children in it. I can't see how starting in 7th grade using henle or any other curriculum would achieve the level or knowledge about the latin language that the students of Jesuits had. The lack of science instruction until they are older is interesting. I have read that traditionally it wasn't taught to young children but I've always wondered if there was just less information about science to teach. I'm always questioning what the core knowledge is and how much certain skills pushed by our current educational system really are necessary. It's well documented that we have a decline in reading and writing abilities and ultimately you only have so many hours in a day to teach students. The more of other subject you add the more you have to start cutting and dropping things from education. The Jesuits system actually seems much more streamlined and simple while at the same time rigorous. As a side note I was shocked in the introduction to find out that Voltaire was educated by the Jesuits. I read Candide over the summer and afterwards I was interested in finding out more about Voltaire. He did not agree with the Jesuits or Catholics. I wonder how much he credits them for refining his abilities. Obviously he was talented but even people born with talent need cultivation and training.  

[Bluegoat]

Thanks! I was able to find Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory for free on google books! 

 

 

I actually have this book on my list of books to read but as I've been going through all of these books it bothered me that I'm learning about different interpretations rather than learning what the original version is. I would like to learn what the history of classical education and how we have arrived at the place we are at in regards to Neo-Classical education. I understand that there have been many changes and there probably isn't a "true" version of classical education so that is why I've decided the only way to really understand it is to learn the history and learn when and why the changes have taken place. At that point I can re-evaluate the books I have read and my feeling on them and continue down my list. 

Thank you! This is really helpful! I think of all the books I've read Climbing Parnassus was the most helpful and he did talk about Greek and Latin being center to the classical education. I've also read (not sure where, I really need to be better about taking notes) that the Jesuits had a big part in keeping classical education alive through the ages but I didn't understand what their form of education looked like. I've recently read Abolition of Man which peaked my interest in the reforms that were taking place at C.S. Lewis time and that brought me to progressive education reform. Ultimately though I'm trying to understand what feels like a lot of pieces of a picture and I would like to be able to put all the pieces together if that makes any sense. 

 

Yes, I think that is the answer - there isn't really such a thing as "classical education". There is a classical tradition, and it has looked different ways at different times.  There are probably stregths and weaknesses in all of them.  Lots of people for example tend to think that the return to an interest in classical civilization that came about in the Renaisannce was great, but in some ways it could be considered retrograde - there were mathematical discoveries, for example, of the Middle Ages, that they ignorened because they weren't found in the Greek or Roman texts. 

 

I have really mixed feelings about the Karen Glass book.  It's worth reading, and is one of the more systematic explorations of CM, but I really felt like she was very fuzzy and even confused about the idea of classical education, and how CM fit into it.

[TracyP]

A few years ago I read a book that contained excerpts from "great thinkers" and their views on education. The excerpts were listed chronologically, and it was immensely helpful in putting together all the pieces. I've spent the last ten minutes searching and cannot remember the title... I did come across this - The Great Tradition: Classical Readings on What it Means to Be an Educated Human. It looks similar to what I read, in fact it could even be the same book. You could check this out to see if it fits what you are looking for.

[Momto4inSoCal]

So it's been 5 months and I've read quite a bit but I still don't feel like I have a complete grasp on everything. I'm going to keep reading but as far as Neo Classical education. I know that most of the movement was based on Dorothy Sayers idea's but was Doug Wilson the one to revive her essays? Was there anyone else in between? I guess I didn't realize the movement was so new. His book was published in 1991 but Dorothy Sayers essay was written in 1947. Anyone know if there was anyone in between or was Doug Wilson essential the founder of the new classical movement? 

[Ms.Ivy]

If I am remembering correctly, Sayer's essay was published in the National Review (William F. Buckley's periodical) which is where Wilson first read it himself. I remember that during the 90s there was an interest among some protestant educators for returning to the educational practices of the Puritans and Calvinist reformers. This sort of happened at the same time Wilson began publishing. Although he certainly had a huge hand in creating new resources and the spread of ideas, he certainly did not found the modern classical education movement.

 

I found the Liberal Arts Tradition by Clark and Jain to be helpful for grasping a better concept of traditional classical education, including through the medieval era.

[ElizaG]

If I am remembering correctly, Sayer's essay was published in the National Review (William F. Buckley's periodical) which is where Wilson first read it himself. I remember that during the 90s there was an interest among some protestant educators for returning to the educational practices of the Puritans and Calvinist reformers. This sort of happened at the same time Wilson began publishing. Although he certainly had a huge hand in creating new resources and the spread of ideas, he certainly did not found the modern classical education movement.

Wilson started a school with his version of the Sayers trivium stages around 1980, or maybe even a bit earlier.  As far as I can tell, he was the first Protestant educator to use this model, and the first person anywhere to call it "classical education."

 

There's also a private Catholic school in Massachusetts -- Trivium School -- that's used the Sayers model since they started in 1979.  This might have been slightly before Wilson's school (or maybe not). 

 

The founder of the Trivium School was formerly a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College, which was founded around 1970 and uses a modified Great Books approach.  I haven't come across any examples of either Trivium School or TAC referring to their curriculum as "classical" in those early years, though they're often described that way now.

 

I also haven't come across any connection between Wilson and the Trivium School, except that they were both influenced by the Sayers essay as published in National Review.  Buckley evidently considered it important, as it was reprinted several times in the magazine (starting in the late 1950s, IIRC), and was also advertised in the back section as an off-print. 

 

Sorry I can't shed more light on this.  It's an interesting question, at least to some of us amateur historians of education.  :001_smile:

[Ms.Ivy]

Wilson started a school with his version of the Sayers trivium stages around 1980, or maybe even a bit earlier. As far as I can tell, he was the first Protestant educator to use this model, and the first person anywhere to call it "classical education."

 

There's also a private Catholic school in Massachusetts -- Trivium School -- that's used the Sayers model since they started in 1979. This might have been slightly before Wilson's school (or maybe not).

 

The founder of the Trivium School was formerly a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College, which was founded around 1970 and uses a modified Great Books approach. I haven't come across any examples of either Trivium School or TAC referring to their curriculum as "classical" in those early years, though they're often described that way now.

 

I also haven't come across any connection between Wilson and the Trivium School, except that they were both influenced by the Sayers essay as published in National Review. Buckley evidently considered it important, as it was reprinted several times in the magazine (starting in the late 1950s, IIRC), and was also advertised in the back section as an off-print.

 

Sorry I can't shed more light on this. It's an interesting question, at least to some of us amateur historians of education. :001_smile:

I am right there with you... it is interesting to me too. Have you read anything by Sister Miriam Joseph? I haven't before now, when I just found this article.

http://classicallatin.org/what-are-liberal-arts

[ElizaG]

OP, you might also be interested in reading about the minor seminaries.  These were pre-seminary prep schools for Catholic boys who felt a strong call to the priesthood (though not all of their graduates ended up becoming priests).   AFAIK, these were the last places in the United States where secondary school students could get a classical education in the post-Renaissance tradition.   There's someone's dissertation on the subject here (PDF), though I haven't read the whole thing.

 

As for the general population, the latest I've found this system in use is Quebec, where it was still going until the 1970s -- though they had switched to what Fr. Francis P. Donnelly called "university methods" in the 1920s.  

 

There's an interesting Quebec connection to TAC.  Some of the founders of the college were Americans who had done graduate work at Laval University in the 1950s.  Laval was supposed to be the best place in North America to study Thomistic philosophy.   Given the founders' admiration for this program, I don't understand why they weren't interested in trying to restore the classical course that was the standard preparation for it, and provided an intellectual and cultural background that would have been shared with St. Thomas himself.  I can certainly see why they might not have found it feasible to implement such a course in their current circumstances, but as far as I can tell, it wasn't even seen as a goal to work toward -- and still isn't, to this day, even among second- and third-generation TAC families.  "Sayers Trivium + Great Books" has become a self-perpetuating system, which started in the 20th century US, but is presumed to be ancient, because it takes the same name as the very different system that existed before it.

 

Setting aside any concerns about the relative value of the older and newer systems, I find this situation rather disturbing in itself.    And also ironic, in that the newer system is supposed to be oriented toward "critical thinking" and "the reading of primary sources," yet it's been received in a way that's naive and ahistorical.  :huh:

[ElizaG]

I am right there with you... it is interesting to me too. Have you read anything by Sister Miriam Joseph? I haven't before now, when I just found this article.

http://classicallatin.org/what-are-liberal-arts

We have both The Trivium and her book on Shakespeare.  I find the Shakespeare book more interesting; The Trivium is kind of dry.  

 

I was surprised to find out, from a biography of Sister Madeleva (a poet and women's college president), that both she and Sister Miriam Joseph learned about the trivium from Mortimer Adler at Columbia -- so these writings are pretty much another offshoot of the Great Books movement.  I see that the author of the post you've linked to has mentioned that connection.   So maybe our collective ignorance about the history of all this is shrinking a bit.  ;)

[serendipitous journey]

Just wanted to re-iterate the suggestions RE Quintillian; also Aristotle's Rhetoric is a nice read.*  I find it oddly comforting that Quintillian was rather opposed to home education ... not sure _why_ I find it comforting, though. 

 

I found Boyd's History of Western Education -- I think it's the eight edition I ended up with -- a worthy read. 

 

* I must say that I like the Stoics as a foil to these, for a sense of Classical ethics that carries right through to the Apostle Paul and beyond; Epictetus, Aurelius, Musonius Rufus, Seneca.  They tend to say a good deal about educating people but in a more incidental way. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by serendipitous journey

[Momto4inSoCal]

Interesting, I had no idea he had opened a school or that it was the logos school http://logosschool.com/about/history/ (link for anyone else reading that's interested in this subject) . It seems that the great books program had a bigger impact on the current model of Neo Classical Education. I don't know if it was here this article was posted but I found it on my to read list and I thought it really highlighted my issue's with the great books method http://www.mmisi.org/ma/31_3-4/wilhelmsen.pdf   .I've tried to look at the current classical idea's and separate the great books approach and the idea of subjects but I don't really know where that leaves me. I would love to teach Latin by reading and translating Cicero but I don't have the ability to do that. I think I've fallen down a hole of never ended pedagogy. 

[Momto4inSoCal]

Just wanted to re-iterate the suggestions RE Quintillian; also Aristotle's Rhetoric is a nice read.*  I find it oddly comforting that Quintillian was rather opposed to home education ... not sure _why_ I find it comforting, though. 

 

I found Boyd's History of Western Education -- I think it's the eight edition I ended up with -- a worthy read. 

 

* I must say that I like the Stoics as a foil to these, for a sense of Classical ethics that carries right through to the Apostle Paul and beyond; Epictetus, Aurelius, Musonius Rufus, Seneca.  They tend to say a good deal about educating people but in a more incidental way. 

 

I have Quintillian on google books right now but I keep getting side tracked and haven't read any of his book. I really enjoyed A History of Education in Antiquity and I felt like it shed a lot of light on Greek and Roman education. I just received The Education of a Christian Woman: A Sixteenth-Century Manual so maybe after that I'll move onto I'll look into the History of Western Education. I've started and stopped Hobbs book Leviathan about three times. I've read he influence a lot of modern idea's but I really can't get into the book. Has anyone here read it? Is it worth it to push through? 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Momto4inSoCal

[ElizaG]

I don't think it's feasible to try to do a homeschool version of traditional classical education a la Quintilian, Ratio, etc.  LCC claimed to provide a way to do this, but the curriculum turned out to be modern Great Books with intensive language study and some other stuff added.  Then there was a certain contentious online academy that promised a lot, but didn't deliver.   At the time I looked into them, I didn't have a sense of the big picture, and thought they might actually live up to the promise.  Now, with a bit of understanding, the part I find interesting is that these authors thought it possible to create a "canned version" of this curriculum in the first place. 

 

As for where that leaves us, we got into this a bit in the Angelicum/GBA thread.  For our homeschool, what seems reasonable to me is to use classical methods to teach English, minimize the use of "university methods" until after the Rhetoric year, and emphasize Christian humanistic formation.  Those are my big take-aways from reading about Renaissance pedagogy.   

 

We also have resources to learn Latin and Greek, to the point of reading classic texts, but I've given up on searching for the "right" way, since it would surely require a human teacher and there's no Mr. Chips here.    :laugh:  If the children develop a habit of self-education with excellent books and other media -- which I'm pretty confident they will -- then they can continue with classical literature as far as they like.  

 

It helps to remember that liberal studies are a lifelong process.   All we need are the books, time, and motivation.  If we're teaching our students the skills and habits they'll need to use leisure wisely, then we're educating them well.   That's straight from Aristotle.  :-)

 

Speaking of humanistic formation, I hope you enjoy The Education of a Christian Woman.   I should probably re-read it, to balance out some other things I've been reading recently.   It's easy to get stuck in details and start drifting away from the big picture.

[Momto4inSoCal]

 

In one article Leigh Bortons compaired her classical conversations program to walmart saying it was cheap easy and anyone could use it lol. I have to admit the idea of carrying on a 2000 year old tradition sounds so appealing. Seeing how litle the current ideas reflected the ancient traditions was/is very disheartening. If it's not an ancient tradition then it seems to me it belongs along side all of the other modern pedagogies out there.

 

We started latin last year and ended up dropping it, we are starting again this year but I really wish I knew the language already. I'm sure I will learn it along side my children I just don't know how well I will be able to teach it. We may move Lukeion eventually.

 

I think one of my major take aways from the reading I've done so far is the view of education as molding the whole human and to include virtue and physical activity along side intellect. I think being raised with such compartmentalized education I have a hard time seeing education in this way. I think of a list of subjects. I have to admit physical fitness has really been neglected in my plans so I'm making a contious effort to have a healthier active lifestyle for us.