Any Charlotte Mason Experts? I have questions...

[Kfamily]

I've spent some time trying to sort through the details on a couple of topics, and ended up with a few questions that I've not been able to find what I felt was a solid answer to them. I was hoping that someone here might help. :) I have looked through archived PNEU programs, Parents' Review articles and CM's book series for answers. There may be something else that I need to look through as well, but I'm not sure. 

 

 

Q1-Why does AO, a curriculum site built by what I would consider a group of ladies who are CM experts, have the students study one poet each term?

 

The archived PNEU programs did not have this approach. The students would have worked from anthologies, primarily. I understand that, like art and composer studies, the idea behind studying just one person's work is to give the student the opportunity to become extremely familiar with his/her specific style. I see the merits of this approach, but I'm trying to weigh this out. Older PNEU programs did not have this approach with regard to poets. Also, eventually the literature and poetry aligns with the historical time period studied. It is harder to accomplish good coverage with this approach. Even AO begins to leave the 3 poet approach behind, at least somewhat, in the high school years. 

 

 

Q2-What are the details for why PNEU programs discouraged the pencil for work in drawing, but later programs showed the use of a drawing book which clearly meant for a pencil to be used?

 

I understand that the intention behind the original idea was to build true art skills which free students from feeling constricted with the limits of a pencil as well as using techniques such as brush-drawing which better builds multiple art technique skills. I'm sensing that the former was the rule to discourage technique restrictions from dominating a child's lesson and from hampering their developmental style. Perhaps the work with a pencil from the drawing book was later added to create balance. I'm trying to better learn when and how often the pencil work was included vs. the brushwork and also in what way age/development was a factor in how to balance these two approaches.

 

Q3-If CM and PNEU articles support and encourage the use of pictures, carefully chosen art, etc. to visually interest children in their studies, then how can we strike the right balance between this and not interfering with a child's ability to form their own mental images? For example, pictures were encouraged when an oral lesson for history or literature was given. Perhaps pictures were encouraged because in Mason's time many of the books used did not have as many pictures as can be found in books today?

 

I'm still struggling with whether using poetry books with pictures is perhaps not a good idea. Does sharing the picture of someone else's interpretation of imagery created while listening and reading poems discourage the listening child from using their own mental imagery? Or does the use of a picture help a child feel connected to the poem and maintain interest?

 

I know these are a bit picky, but the details are important. I think a good educational approach is built on principles, and the details always point back to those principles. Any thoughts? :)

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Kfamily

[shadah]

I would guess they chose anthologies for ease and affordability. Did they read only certain portions each term? Were they divided by poet or era?

I thought pictures were chosen to be studied for themselves, not to illustrate an idea already “painted†in words.

[Kfamily]

Yes, that's probably true. That makes sense that the volumes were anthologies for affordability. The poetry for young children seemed to be less formal. As the students moved into the upper years, the selections lined up with the time period in history that was being studied. I'm not sure if it would be better to group the studies into 3-poets-per-year or to follow the anthology plan. You've inspired me to look into what poems were studied and when. :)

 

The pictures were meant to gain the interest of the children and to provide an image of someone or something perhaps still unfamiliar to them. For example, in an example lesson included in a PNEU article, the children learn about Westminster Abbey, a little of its history and its earlier role as an abbey, etc. The children are shown pictures of cloisters to further add to this lesson. Or while learning about Thomas More, the students are shown his portrait by Holbein. These were used to augment history and literature and were separate from the works chosen for picture study each term.

 

I just can't seem to decide if illustrated books of poetry is better than non-illustrated. Of course, if I decided to go to anthologies vs. 3 separate poets each year, than my decision may be made for me. I'm using the Poetry for Young People series which covers only 1 poet per book. Going to anthologies would mean not using these books anymore, which would eliminate the illustrations too. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Kfamily

[EmilyGF]

I've spent some time trying to sort through the details on a couple of topics, and ended up with a few questions that I've not been able to find what I felt was a solid answer to them. I was hoping that someone here might help. :) I have looked through archived PNEU programs, Parents' Review articles and CM's book series for answers. There may be something else that I need to look through as well, but I'm not sure. 

 

 

Q1-Why does AO, a curriculum site built by what I would consider a group of ladies who are CM experts, have the students study one poet each term?

 

No clue. Experts I've spoken with say there is nothing that supports having a poet each term. If you think about how many poets there are and how many poems the kids read (often one or more a day when they aren't covering epic poems) it really makes sense that they can cover much more ground!

 

Q2-What are the details for why PNEU programs discouraged the pencil for work in drawing, but later programs showed the use of a drawing book which clearly meant for a pencil to be used?

 

Is this for different ages? I was just looking at an article (not in the public sphere, sorry) about why brush work was used in the early years. If not, I can only conjecture.

 

Q3-If CM and PNEU articles support and encourage the use of pictures, carefully chosen art, etc. to visually interest children in their studies, then how can we strike the right balance between this and not interfering with a child's ability to form their own mental images? For example, pictures were encouraged when an oral lesson for history or literature was given. Perhaps picture were encouraged because in Mason's time many of the books used did not have as many pictures as can be found in books today?

 

The idea behind this was to use paintings by masters who had considered long and hard the scenes and then painted on them in order to stretch the child's thinking or draw attention to something less obvious in the text. I think you strike a balance by having a high bar for "master" and by using them infrequently. I think a picture makes sense for history or literature when it is picturing something not fully explained in the text and beyond the child's world.

 

[EmilyGF]

That makes sense that the volumes were anthologies for affordability. 

 

Again, there is no reason to think they studied a poet per term. Per Jen Spencer, this is a modern CM myth that has no root in historical documents. (At least that's what she said last time I heard her talking about it.)

 

The pictures were meant to gain the interest of the children and to provide an image of someone or something perhaps still unfamiliar to them. For example, in an example lesson included in a PNEU article, the children learn about Westminster Abbey, a little of its history and its earlier role as an abbey, etc. The children are shown pictures of cloisters to further add to this lesson. Or while learning about Thomas More, the students are shown his portrait by Holbein. These were used to augment history and literature and were separate from the works chosen for picture study each term.

 

These are pictures of real people/places. Imagining an Abbey or a random person doesn't cut it, I would think.

 

I just can't seem to decide if illustrated books of poetry is better than non-illustrated. Of course, if I decided to go to anthologies vs. 3 separate poets each year, than my decision may be made for me. I'm using the Poetry for Young People series which covers only 1 poet per book. Going to anthologies would mean not using these books anymore, which would eliminate the illustrations too. 

 

While I'm familiar with that series and even own a few, I don't think highly of the illustrations. I see them more as trying to keep the child interested than introducing high quality visuals to the child. A far cry from Holbein... 

[Kfamily]

EmilyGF,

 

Thank you! This was very helfpul!!

 

Yes, it was the younger children (Form I) that were not to use pencils much, but a book on drawing was recommended for outline drawing. 

 

My goal is to try and distinguish better between 2 points, which on the surface seems to oppose each other. I'm looking for reasons why so that I can better understand it. I'm assuming that there is a reason and explanation for it, but I don't know where to look for it. :) Hopefully, this makes sense.

 

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Some of these are practical points more than anything.

 

IIRC, AO organizes not only poetry that way, but folk songs, artists, etc, mainly because it serves the needs of their online community and it allows them to provide background material in a way the AO people find workable for themselves.  

 

Anthologies IMO are similar - they are economical and easy to get.

 

I've used both methods, largely depending on what nice prints and books I can get at good prices.  Sometimes I've done both at once- my dd and I spent a year reading Robert Burns, as other things from an anthology, but we didn't study much about the authors in the latter.  We read a lot about Burns though.

 

As far as brush painting, my guess would be that once children had that skill, it was seen as fine for them to also use a pencil.  And the thing is, pencil drawing in many situations has a lot more utility - you can do it anytime, anywhere so long as you have a bit of paper and a pencil.  Brush painting isn't nearly as flexible.  Small children though can really benefit from the freedom of the brush.

 

With illustrations - one subjects by nature are visual - Westminster Abbey, for example, looks a particular way, however you imagine it.  For poetry though, that's less often true.  Some children do have a very difficult time focusing on the words without an illustration, so it would likely to be helpful to children like that.  I'd tend to use the books I had, rather than buy new, over an issue like this, or pick a better anthology whether or not it has illustrations.  Over time you will almost certainly end up using various types of books.

 

I think the thing to remember is that the mind of the child is formed to learn.  Details like these won't make or break this - if you observe the child herself, you'll see if something like illustrations, or lack of them, are a problem.  Or you'll notice that the child, or the teacher, would rather some variety in the poetry, or on the contrary would like to dig into one author for a bit.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Kfamily]

Thank you Bluegoat, this is helpful too! :)

 

Often, it really helps just to have a "conversation" about some of these topics/ideas. Reading the thoughts and perspectives of others really helps me with my own. Thank you!