Question: is Charlotte Mason 'Classical'?

[Mary70]

There has been some debate recently between Chris Perrin and Art Middlekauf in the comments of this article: https://www.charlottemasoninstitute.org/reconsidering-charlotte-mason-and-the-classical-tradition-by-art-middlekauff/

 

My question is: why would it be important to know whether or not CM was CE?

 

What might be behind the passion shown by one side versus the other? 

 

Do we define a 'method' by its universals or particulars, its purpose or its method?

 

Looking forward to hearing everyone's views as I'm genuinely curious  :001_smile:

 

 

 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

What makes something Classical Education has always been debatable.  People also sub-categorize it differently. It can be a contentious discussion and threads about it have been shut down in the past because some people just can't handle the discussion civilly. 

[Kfamily]

I only have a couple of minutes, so I can't address all of your questions yet. I did want to share with you one thought that I had about why there has been a current attempt to point out the many ideas that the Charlotte Mason approach has in common with typical ideas from the Classical Education approach. I believe that for far too long CM's methods and ideas were generalized as a gentle approach to education, with the focus always being on adding in some handcrafts, Shakespeare and poetry as well as adding in artist, composer and nature study. When this was compared to other approaches, especially Classical Education, a Charlotte Mason education was often found to be lacking.

 

Many teachers, who followed her ideas but who also followed ideas from Classical Education, noticed that the similarities were more significant than had previously been considered, especially when you separated out the typical "generalized" points and focused more on the drive for a liberal education.

 

I think the push to show the similarities is a way to reset itself, to change the former misrepresentation of it and show that it is a thorough and well-developed curriculum approach. I'm sure that, as with many things, the push has probably overcompensated for where it once was and that soon it will find its correct place.

 

I'm hesitant to post this, because I'm running short on time and have not been able to fully express my points. I'll try to do better when I have more time. :)

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Kfamily

[Jackie]

SWB weighed in on this in this article a few years back.

 

I have no particular opinion, as I'm very eclectic and wouldn't say that I "follow" either WTM or CM or any other particular philosophy.

[Guest]

SWB weighed in on this in this article a few years back.

 

I have no particular opinion, as I'm very eclectic and wouldn't say that I "follow" either WTM or CM or any other particular philosophy.

 

Thanks for posting that link. I'm out of likes and have never seen that one before, so thanks! :) 

[Another Lynn]

I agree with Kfamily.  

 

Maybe it's also related to the attempt to define classical.  As some approaches to neo-classical education have distorted the importance of memory work (among other re-interpretations) and possibly lost the thread of classical education, then some aspects of CM do ring more true of "classical" than some newer programs purporting to be "classical."  (clear as mud, right?)

 

 

[Mary70]

Thanks everyone. I really enjoyed SWB's article: she made a good point about no version being exactly as it came out of the mouth of Plato 2400 years ago.

 

Another question is: would homeschoolers being doing themselves or their children a disservice if they misinterpreted CM as not Classical, or vice versa? How important is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jackie]

Thanks everyone. I really enjoyed SWB's article: she made a good point about no version being exactly as it came out of the mouth of Plato 2400 years ago.

 

Another question is: would homeschoolers being doing themselves or their children a disservice if they misinterpreted CM as not Classical, or vice versa? How important is it?

As a rule, I don't take part in these theoretical discussions. I've read at least surface level on every method/philosophy I've ever heard of, and not gone deep on any of them. I take what clicks with me and my child and ignore the rest. Going eclectic allows me to constantly match to my child.

 

From that perspective, I see no disservice being done. Label yourself any way you wish. I think the majority of people do the "take what works, ignore the rest" approach even when they define themselves by a method. Defining yourself is more of a shortcut to find "your people" and materials that are likely to fit with your approach than a set of rules that must be rigidly followed.

[HS Mom in NC]

 

 

Another question is: would homeschoolers being doing themselves or their children a disservice if they misinterpreted CM as not Classical, or vice versa? How important is it?

 

Themselves?  I can't see any reason it would be a disservice if they interpreted anything any particular way.

 

In Classical and CM communities?  Well, when people discuss something they typically need to have an understanding about what their terms mean.  What one group/individual means by classical could vary significantly enough from what another group/individual considers classical so it would require the participants to either define their terms before the discussion begins or to adopt the definitions of the terms that the group or one individual uses in order for the conversation to be meaningful and productive.

[Hunter]

The problem really starts with defining "classic" and "classical"

 

I tend to be rigid in my definition of "classical" and usually use "neo-clasical" for what many mean as "classical"

 

I'm an old schooler from when LCC was a METHOD, not a book, and the author of the book with that title was just an ordinary dad of a toddler/preschooler on the LCC e-mail loop. My signature back then was the mantra of that book, and I stopped using it as soon as he told me he was writing a book and using that phrase.

 

Classical, to most of us on that e-mail loop, was Latin and Greek and math and progym. Our books were Quintilian, Climbing Parnassus, The Devil Knows Latin, and Composition in the Classical Tradition. And for many of us Saxon math.

 

We looked towards the classical programs at universities to help us plan, and that was Latin and Greek and more Latin and Greek.

 

Back then CM was probably misunderstood. The preschool suggestions were probably pushed into higher grades than intended. People had access to less of her writing and ran with what they had. It is difficult for this group that developed identity and created community to be told they should disregard all that. It was something real and good, and now it is being delegated to "wrong".

 

TWTM and AO are critical additions to the homeschool world, but they disrupted entrenched ideas, practices, and definitions.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Hunter

[Bluegoat]

In and of itself, I don't really think it is important whether CM is understood as "classical:.  Although, arguably if someone tried to force that association, it could result in misunderstanding CM.

 

I do think that a lot of that kind of discussion is really about figuring out what the heck "classical education" is supposed to mean.  I've tended to understand it as "in the classical/western tradition" but that reflects, I think, that I studied classics at university, as does my understanding of the classical tradition - for others it seems to mean something rather different.

 

I also think, as someone above suggested, that it is in part a result of the misunderstanding of Mason's approach that was so dominant for a while, which suggested it as a sort of Christian Waldorf method.  To try and show that to be false some have emphasized some of the similarities in approach or results with classical  education.

[Mary70]

Back then CM was probably misunderstood. The preschool suggestions were probably pushed into higher grades than intended. People had access to less of her writing and ran with what they had. It is difficult for this group that developed identity and created community to be told they should disregard all that.

 

 

misunderstanding of Mason's approach that was so dominant for a while, which suggested it as a sort of Christian Waldorf method

 

 

Yes, that does make sense. CM was misunderstood as "gentle" and feminine, while Classical was seen as rigorous and masculine. Some of those myths were busted here. here.

And applying CM kindy and lower primary methods, ie half days and short lessons, to highschool? You just wouldn't get very far. 

 

Thanks for your intriguing thoughts on this!  :lurk5:

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, that does make sense. CM was misunderstood as "gentle" and feminine, while Classical was seen as rigorous and masculine. Some of those myths were busted here. here.

And applying CM kindy and lower primary methods, ie half days and short lessons, to highschool? You just wouldn't get very far. 

 

Thanks for your intriguing thoughts on this!  :lurk5:

 

That's a rather interesting set of blog posts, and some of it is quite good, though it is really pushing AO as some sort of ideal plan.

 

I found some of the responses from the AO people interesting, in that they seemed much more flexible than when I've seen them deal with people on their FB group or forum.

 

I always find myself frustrated with their beat-around-the-bush answers to concerns about evolution though.