Jump to content

Menu

Anyone up for a discussion about the latest Classical Teacher ed? (Links to articles inside)


Recommended Posts

During TGB, I received this in the mail, and instead of tossing it, I sat down and read it.  Oh my.  If it hadn't been during TGB, I would have posted a long post with my immediate reaction to these 2 articles.  But, since time has passed (and today is a crazy busy day for me), I am going to post a very abbreviated version and would enjoy reading other people's reactions to the articles (and while I am a Christian and obviously agree with idea of Christian beliefs impacting our children's development, I am more interested in discussing these ideas in terms outside of all of the Christian references and I am more interested in the educational commentary.)

https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/a-homeschool-is-still-a-school/

https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/classical-education-is-more-than-a-method/

The first article made me extremely glad that I have ignored all homeschool materials that present similar positions.  It sounded like a page right out of another homeschool provider's handbook, a school-in-a-box provider that almost every Catholic homeschooler in this area uses. The dominant philosophy is that school-at-home is the only correct way to possibly educate orderly, well-educated minds.  This quote made me cringe.  

Quote

 The idea of letting children choose what they will study and when has no place in the the parent-directed classroom, and just as we address this issue in the environment of a traditional classroom, so should we do the same in the homeschool learning environment.

The second article....I don't think I have ever read an article on homeschooling that I so heartily agreed with and disagreed with at the same time.  Yay for Cothran articulating so clearly that grammar, logic, and rhetoric are subjects and not ages/stages and that Sayers does NOT define classical education.  

This quote sums up that idea succinctly and clearly:

Quote

The classical trivium—grammar, logic, and rhetoric—was a taxonomy of intellectual skills, proceeding from the simple and most basic language skills to the more complex and sophisticated. Grammar taught students how language was structured, logic how to use language in the construction of valid arguments, and rhetoric how language could be used for the purpose of persuasion.

I fully agree with that quote and his thoughts that classical education is more than a mere method.  But, I don't agree with most of rest that he wrote.

I cannot help but believe that MP included these 2 articles in the same issue in order to create an impression of classical education being defined by their own methodology.  (Workbooks replicating school-at-home???)

My personal opinion is that classical education is defined in Cothran's article:

Quote

 The classical trivium had traditionally been seen as a simple listing of the first three liberal arts {grammar, logic, rhetoric] (those intellectual arts related to language), which, along with the mathematical arts of the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy) made up the seven classical liberal arts.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't thoroughly read either one - I'll have to make time this week to do it!

I started the first article and was turned off by it pretty quickly.

I skimmed the end of Cothran's article and was glad to see that Sayers was being de-throned a bit.  I enjoyed Karen Glass' book (Consider This) which tried to distinguish between the goals of a classical education (and how we may still strive for those goals even in the modern era) and the execution of "neo classical" which has gotten hung up on methods at the expense of those original goals.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t read the second article, though now that I’m glancing at it i think I’ll be more interested in that one.

I had a very negative reaction to the first one. I think that maybe the spirit of it is good: the idea that the education of children is a serious business. But I disagree with some of the details. It reminds me of a talk from Veritas Press years ago, which gave me the impression that the only way homeschoolers could do a good job is if they imitated a classroom, of course preferably with the VP materials which are The Right Way to do classical education. 

That still doesn’t bother me too much because after all, these are businesses which are selling things. The articles are in their catalog. They are not hiding the fact that they are selling a Method and their own materials. I can take or leave them as I wish. I tend to read articles from Circe more often because, although they do sell books and a very few materials, they tend to be a little broader in scope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first article I'm not really sure how she feels the schools are child centered. I know they have taken some steps to create group learning, like arrange desk in groups rather than aisles and AR test where they can select any reading material to test on, but as a whole I would not call public schools child centered. It sounds like she's maybe talking about being more authoritative vs passive and how that can be a problem in both schools and homeschool. In general I agree that the parent needs to be the parent and ultimately makes the final decision and that having order in the house is good for everyone. I don't agree that students should have no say in their education. Some of our richest conversations have come from rabbit trails. Taking that freedom away would lead for very dreary days and removes some of the greatest benifits we have as homeschoolers. 

In the second article he says that content matters not just the learning how to learn but what content? The memoria press content? Ultimately the highland school must adhere to state standards in some form so  is that the content they are talking about? Also it states: Sayers does not try to explain what classical education is in her speech. That is not even remotely her purpose. And her audience would have associated classical education, not with anything new she was proposing in her speech, but primarily with the reading of the Great Books in their original languages, and secondarily with the mastery of the liberal arts. 

So he dethrones Sayers and puts in Adler? Because the great books approach is much older.... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the second article, but it appears I only started the first (and must have lost interest or been distracted). On the first article, I find it hard to believe the author homeschooled six kids for thirty years. What she writes is so pie-in-the-sky. She seemed to be writing some sort of treatise against unschooling. However, I don't necessarily disagree with many of her points. For example, she believes schooling should be orderly (schedules, routines, neat environment) and that parents should not be lax in their discipline (enforcing proper meal etiquette and hygiene). Ideally, I agree. 

It was only when she went here:

Quote

The idea of letting children choose what they will study and when has no place in the the parent-directed classroom

that I thought she might not have kids of her own or perhaps just never homeschooled. (The little note at the bottom disabused me of this idea.) It is difficult to allow this in a workbook-only curriculum (like MP), so I see where they (MP) might promote it, but it seems a very absolute statement. There are ways to teach writing and math that do so gently and in a way that the student will love the subject matter being written about or the objects being counted. (DD#2 did 'horse math' for almost a year. Every division and multiplication problem had to do with horses, their feed, stabling, or their cost. The more concrete the horse example, the better she did the math. DD#2 & #3 loved the first section of Treasured Conversations because they got to hear Bushy & Cheddar stories. :heart: )

While my kids and I could never keep our learning environment as 

Quote

a place of order that is clean and neat, beautiful, and inviting to your learner? Is it simple and uncluttered, with perhaps some lovely works of art displayed?

My kids do like environments like that. We just can't seem to live in them and keep them that way. (We do have lovely art created by a couple of my talented children.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read articles like this it just makes me more and more aware that I am not a classical educator.  I love these forums and the wealth of experience and advice here. But sometimes I have to be careful to remind myself this is not actually my educational philosophy.  As such, I probably can't contribute much to the conversation but as I did take the time to peruse the articles I thought I would comment anyway, lol...  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RootAnn said:

... However, I don't necessarily disagree with many of her points. For example, she believes schooling should be orderly (schedules, routines, neat environment) and that parents should not be lax in their discipline (enforcing proper meal etiquette and hygiene). Ideally, I agree. 

I don't agree with the concept of orderly as it came across in the article.  Do my kids know that school is our top priority on school days?  Yes.  Do I set a clock and say school is starting? No.  Do we have a routine of what subjects are done in what order? No. Are we dressed, sitting at a table?  That is a huge NO.  Most of the time my kids get up and start school on their own.  I might be driving their brother to work and they are doing their work when I get home.  They are in a recliner, sitting on a sofa, laying on the floor in the pjs most of the time.  

We can sit outside on a porch swing.  We can curl up on the sofa. We can be taking a walk in the woods and have a philosophical discussion about literature and allusions. I absolutely do NOT believe we need to be sitting at a table (code for desk??)  

None of that equates to being lax in discipline or subordinating educational values.  I agree with the point (that is buried somewhere amongst the artificial constraints) that education must be a priority and that staying on top of educational objectives requires self-discipline.  Everything about what that must resemble---no.

1 hour ago, CaliforniaDreamin said:

When I read articles like this it just makes me more and more aware that I am not a classical educator.  I love these forums and the wealth of experience and advice here. But sometimes I have to be careful to remind myself this is not actually my educational philosophy.  As such, I probably can't contribute much to the conversation but as I did take the time to peruse the articles I thought I would comment anyway, lol...  

I don't think there is a single definition of classical education!  If CC is classical, ugh.....(seems the antithesis of classical education to me.)  FWIW, based on MY definition of classical education, I am not classical educator, either.  I know that based on what I have researched over the years that there is absolutely zero chance of my replicating that type of education at home.  I can create a great educational experience for my children, but classical it isn't.  

I value classical education.  I implement what I can.  I let go of the rest and focus on achieving what I know we are capable of doing at home.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

Her bio is interesting with the phrasing: “Administering home education”. I bet she’s a riot at parties. (Where the eye roll emoji when you need it?) I know my kids love to be administered to. 

Also, isn’t being familiar with your kids one of the highlights of homeschooling? If I wanted to be distant I’d pack them off somewhere else. This whole tone of the article made me glad it wasn’t my first intro to classical ed......although I will say her tone rings true from what I’m seeing at some of the Classical models springing up here. 

Where are emojis when you need them?? Your post made me burst out laughing. (Great way to start my morning!) 

Anyhow....exactly!!!! Everything---the tone, the word choices, the sentiment--represents an atmosphere of formality and control vs nurturing and cultivating from intimately knowing your child. The admonishment incorporated into the sentence about pursuing truth, beauty, and goodness is so arrogant, "there are some definite standards to observe that will go a long way toward helping your child grow in wisdom and virtue," and goes on to the quote in my OP negating the value of child-centered pursuits.

I agree with momto4inSoCal that that entire paragraph on schools being child-centered was bizarre. My (ps teacher for over 15 yrs) niece's days are so scripted that she no longer feels like a teacher but a textbook/test administrator (interestingly, right back to that word and that represents the ps philosophy that is the opposite of what I want for my children.)

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

Her bio is interesting with the phrasing: “Administering home education”. I bet she’s a riot at parties. (Where the eye roll emoji when you need it?) I know my kids love to be administered to. 

Also, isn’t being familiar with your kids one of the highlights of homeschooling? If I wanted to be distant I’d pack them off somewhere else. This whole tone of the article made me glad it wasn’t my first intro to classical ed......although I will say her tone rings true from what I’m seeing at some of the Classical models springing up here. 

 

That quotation by Quintilian made me type out a two-paragraph long response and then delete it.

But my main response is that I am a mother, not a teacher. And that is where I believe all discipline-- my self-discipline, my children's choice to follow me-- come from in my home. (While she wishes we could follow Quintilian's advice that "the more [a good teacher] admonishes, the less he will have to punish," I have found that the need for admonishment is a warning to me that my role modeling is diminished. Admonishment is no replacement, in a home, for being a respected and cherished guide and leader. (And I'm not sure it is in the classroom, either, unless his definition of admonishment is different from mine.)

The second article concludes with an impassioned call to "enroll [parents] and their children in the fateful defense of Western Christian culture," going on to say, "We live in the cultural twilight of a great civilization in which a growing darkness is increasingly blinding us to the wonders of creation and the nature of who we are as beings created in the image of God. It is a battle that will require far more than a mere method."

I am not a big fan of appeals to fear (especially those based upon the perceived superiority of a certain civilization, religion, or culture) and my children's education is not (for me) a battle. I am not responding to the Christianity in this article, but to this particular idea of Western Christian superiority and threats thereto, and classical education as its vehicle. So I feel that Sayers' aim "to teach men to learn for themselves" speaks to me more than the dogged defense of Western culture against a growing darkness. And it is the particular worldview espoused in this article that turns many people away from classical education, and I suspect it is not just those of us who aren't Christian.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, fralala said:

to teach men to learn for themselves

That quote bothers me, but for a different reason than Cothran. It bothers me bc I one word changes the context of what I see as the goal of classical education. I see the entire point of classical education to be for the individual to think for themselves. That is the point of the understanding logic and rhetoric. One word distorts the meaning and only if you truly understand the bigger context of classical education does the word even jump out at you, let alone as a distortion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read other replies yet.

 

As far as article 1 - it kind of grated, its tone.  But I do think that education, for most kids, needs to be more than child-led.  When I was in high school, I was very influenced by the unschoolers ideas, and would have said that kids will learn things as they live life.  After I went to university and realized how really ignorant I was, I changed my mind.  There is, I think, such a thing as basic knowledge.  There are things that are needed to function as a good citizen, for example.  And often that needs to be facilitated by those who already are aware of those things.  And then there are things that are wonderful and joyful, but kids don't know them, or about them, unless someone leads them to them.  Sometimes even pushes them through the early learning curve.

The other thing I would say that perhaps agrees somewhat is that there is something to be said for schedule and routine, and a habit of work.  This is something that parents usually have to create.

And yet, I think there is really quite a lot of room for child-led or collaborative learning.  I think the goal, ultimately, is to have the child take on the responsibility be a participant.  Following rabbit trails or interests has a lot of benefits, and often, there is not one set of facts, learned in a particular order, that is "right".

I felt I wanted to say to the author  - there is no education except self-education!!!

 

As far as the second article - Yes, in a way it's right about saying that Sayers does not define classical education.  And to say that she makes it psychological may be true.  I would also say, that I don't think Sayers was actually trying to promote some system.  She was thinking about education.

OTOH, they seem quite dismissive of psychology and pedagogy.  I think they are completely wrong to say Sayers didn't care about content -  it seems clear to me that wasn't true, as a teacher she cared deeply about content.  And for that matter I think it is untrue that "real" classical educators had no interest in what we would call psychology, or in pedagogy.  If that were so, I think they'd have been failures, not to mention inhuman.

I am not particularly impressed by the sense that there is some static vision of classical education that we need to put our finger on in order to teach.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a huge difference between unschooling and stating that letting children choose what to study and when has no place in a parent-directed classroom.  Parent-directed means that the parent is involved in the process.  Letting a child decide that they want to study American history instead of Roman history is far different than leaving the decision to the child if they even want to study history at all.  Letting a child decide whether they want to do math or history first on any particular day is not the same as letting them decide between doing something for school vs playing minecraft all day.

I wholeheartedly agree about not being impressed by the static vision of what we should teach, especially in terms of the rapidity of the technological advances impacting all aspects of human life and the intertwining of global economies and cultures.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

I don't agree with the concept of orderly as it came across in the article.  Do my kids know that school is our top priority on school days?  Yes.  Do I set a clock and say school is starting? No.  Do we have a routine of what subjects are done in what order? No. Are we dressed, sitting at a table?  That is a huge NO.  Most of the time my kids get up and start school on their own.  I might be driving their brother to work and they are doing their work when I get home.  They are in a recliner, sitting on a sofa, laying on the floor in the pjs most of the time.  

We can sit outside on a porch swing.  We can curl up on the sofa. We can be taking a walk in the woods and have a philosophical discussion about literature and allusions. I absolutely do NOT believe we need to be sitting at a table (code for desk??) 

 

 

I don't really have an issue with people doing school at a desk but I don't have an issue with them not doing school at a desk either. I think what is irritating is the way the author wrote it making it seem like the only way to do school is in a school at home enviroment. Sometimes my kids sit at a desk, sometimes they sit on the patio, at the couch, at the kitchen counter, it doesn't really make a difference or make their education classical. If I built a greek forum in my backyard that wouldn't mean I was giving them a classical education. The same goes for routine and schedule. I do prefer a routine, schedules like managers of their homes promotes drive me crazy but I know that for some people these work great. To promote the idea that this is the only way to homeschool is really missing the whole idea of classical education. There is no possible way to completely recreate a classical school in our home. It's just not going to happen and if you completely disregard the fact that we are mothers teaching our children in our home you miss some of the greatest benifits or homeschooling. Seeing our children as individuals who have likes and interest, igniting a passion or just allowing them to go off on bunny trails is one of the greatest joys or homeschooling IMO. 

I feel like many curriculum companies that are trying to promote classical education are stumbling around trying to find a formula to recreate this grand idea that will create a well rounded individual and still somehow mesh that idea with what society has deemed as core material, high school requirements and what homeschoolers want. Along with making material that doesn't require a master teacher and is completely independent. In the end often time what they create looks a lot like public school. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Momto4inSoCal said:

 

 

I feel like many curriculum companies that are trying to promote classical education are stumbling around trying to find a formula to recreate this grand idea that will create a well rounded individual and still somehow mesh that idea with what society has deemed as core material, high school requirements and what homeschoolers want. Along with making material that doesn't require a master teacher and is completely independent. In the end often time what they create looks a lot like public school. 

I agree! The articles, although expressing their beliefs, are also trying to sell their curriculum to a specific audience of homeschoolers who want to make sure they get it "right." If they just use this, their kids will magically be well rounded and perfectly educated.

I read the first article and was struck by the tone more than anything. It was one of the most fear driven articles I have ever read from their magazine. It was almost like they purposely tried to tap into the fear of some homeschoolers in order to sell more products, using the current cultural tone to advance their agenda. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Momto4inSoCal said:

I feel like many curriculum companies that are trying to promote classical education are stumbling around trying to find a formula to recreate this grand idea that will create a well rounded individual and still somehow mesh that idea with what society has deemed as core material, high school requirements and what homeschoolers want. Along with making material that doesn't require a master teacher and is completely independent. In the end often time what they create looks a lot like public school. 

So, so true.  But, oh my, the irony there! No master teacher and completely independent means no parent teacher and only a "homeschool administrator."  Yikes.  Everything I love about homeschooling completely obliterated.  Makes me sad that feeding on fear and pounding the superiority drum undermines parental homeschooling confidence.

59 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I’m not sure if it was always there and I’m just becoming more aware of it, or if it’s a newer trend, but there seems to be a level of snobbery developing among some of these publishers (cough, cough MP) and their adherents that needs to get nipped in the bud. I mean, you can be enthusiastic about many things regarding Classical education and not be an insufferable snot about it

That has been around the homeschool classical movement for as long as I can remember.  But, parents are partly to blame.  Many companies' claims are so removed from classical education that it is hard to fathom how they manage to market themselves as such without most people running the other way.   For example, polly parroting information that has no context is about as far removed from classical education as you can get, but how many parents out there think that bc their 5 yr old can recite random factoids that they are being classically educated??

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

 I mean, you can be enthusiastic about many things regarding Classical education and not be an insufferable snot about it. Apparently that point was lost on a couple of these authors. 

I really like a LOT of Memoria Press, but yes!!!!!!!! Some of the articles are fantastic (about math and phonics in particular). But some are so pretentious (and poorly written, I might add) that they make my eyes roll. Insufferable snot is exactly the right term. 

 

and yeah, i didn't like the first article at all, although it had a FEW good points buried in it. Mainly, education is important and needs to be a priority, and making space in your house for it and time in your day are both ways you show that. The rest, blech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

 

That has been around the homeschool classical movement for as long as I can remember.  But, parents are partly to blame.  Many companies' claims are so removed from classical education that it is hard to fathom how they manage to market themselves as such without most people running the other way.   For example, polly parroting information that has no context is about as far removed from classical education as you can get, but how many parents out there think that bc their 5 yr old can recite random factoids that they are being classically educated??

The same thing occurs with Charlotte Mason. Use some narration or notebooking in your curriculum and you can call it Charlotte Mason. And as CM education is only 100 years old, it’s pretty easy to define exactly what it is, whereas Classical has a slippery definition, so its even easier to label something classical without anyone taking issue with it. 

 

Kind of a rabbit trail, but there is an interesting article by David Hicks (author of Norms and Nobility, that kind of helped start the Classical Christian school movement) saying that he doesn’t believe it is possible to give children a classical education in the modern age, which goes along with what you said, and I agree, that I can’t give my kids a true Classical education (though for different reasons than Hicks states in his article). And he isn’t talking about homeschooling specifically. https://www.circemagazine.com/blog/possible

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Penelope said:

Kind of a rabbit trail, but there is an interesting article by David Hicks (author of Norms and Nobility, that kind of helped start the Classical Christian school movement) saying that he doesn’t believe it is possible to give children a classical education in the modern age, which goes along with what you said, and I agree, that I can’t give my kids a true Classical education (though for different reasons than Hicks states in his article). And he isn’t talking about homeschooling specifically. https://www.circemagazine.com/blog/possible

This talk is sort of along the same vein but the OP specifically requested to not go in that direction so I'll post the link and leave it at that https://youtu.be/gPWP0iovewI

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Penelope said:

Kind of a rabbit trail, but there is an interesting article by David Hicks (author of Norms and Nobility, that kind of helped start the Classical Christian school movement) saying that he doesn’t believe it is possible to give children a classical education in the modern age, which goes along with what you said, and I agree, that I can’t give my kids a true Classical education (though for different reasons than Hicks states in his article). And he isn’t talking about homeschooling specifically. https://www.circemagazine.com/blog/possible

Thank you for sharing the article.  I am glad I read it. (It would seem rather perverse to say I enjoyed reading it.  :( ) I found it very much in the tone of The Abolition of Man.

My goal in educating my children (and incorporating as much classical philosophy as I can for this purpose) is straight from Ignatius/Jesuit philosophy.  The purpose of educating the person is so that they have the ability to think for themselves so that they have the interior mental freedom to pursue the end for which they were intended.  (that is a much theology/Christian philosophy I am willing to wade into on these forums.)  I do believe that neo-classical education completely misses the philosophical mark here and only focuses on knowledge vs. philosophy.  

But, I am also not so doom and gloom as Hicks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 1: I'm reminded of Dolores Umbridge, and feel like a Weasley.  My children have written plans in a planner and a dedicated workspace, but we're as equally likely to eat chocolate cake while working through algebra 2 as we are to take an hour off for a walk on a beautiful spring afternoon.  School is a part of our daily rhythm, but it isn't the only way to achieve truth/goodness/beauty/moral behavior.  Order and discipline aren't our chief objectives.  

Article 2:  I find that this article has many of the same problems as the first.  He speaks of taxonomy and order and process and content and somehow convolutes that into a moral imperative to educate our children classically in order to stave off the decline of society.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Article 1: I'm reminded of Dolores Umbridge, and feel like a Weasley.  My children have written plans in a planner and a dedicated workspace, but we're as equally likely to eat chocolate cake while working through algebra 2 as we are to take an hour off for a walk on a beautiful spring afternoon.  School is a part of our daily rhythm, but it isn't the only way to achieve truth/goodness/beauty/moral behavior.  Order and discipline aren't our chief objectives.  

Article 2:  I find that this article has many of the same problems as the first.  He speaks of taxonomy and order and process and content and somehow convolutes that into a moral imperative to educate our children classically in order to stave off the decline of society.

I'm right there with you. I guess the bottom line is that their magazine is indeed an advertisement for their methods and products. If classical ed is to be compared to the Wizarding World I'm a Weasley or possibly a Lovegood. We use curriculum and I decide what my kids learn every year based on my own research and experience. We also hardly ever sit at a desk/table and I feel complete freedom in adapting any and all curriculum to suit my students. I do agree that all their articles come off sounding a bit authoritarian. Luckily, I feel fine ignoring their tone.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

 

My goal in educating my children (and incorporating as much classical philosophy as I can for this purpose) is straight from Ignatius/Jesuit philosophy.  The purpose of educating the person is so that they have the ability to think for themselves so that they have the interior mental freedom to pursue the end for which they were intended.  (that is a much theology/Christian philosophy I am willing to wade into on these forums.)  I do believe that neo-classical education completely misses the philosophical mark here and only focuses on knowledge vs. philosophy.  

 

I think this gets at the heart of my issue with the first article.  For an educational philosophy bound up in defining what it is to be human, the article was void of humanity.  

There is wisdom there, but it was difficult to move beyond my own emotional response.  Ironically, it wasn't the general message of order with which I struggled.  It was the  narrow distant tone and prescribed detail which came off more as an apologetic than the advice of a seasoned veteran.  It didn't ring true.  It is, however, a tone I'm familiar with... usually coming from young classical purists who have young children. 

The second article was well done!  I could hear him in it.  However, the bolded (mine) portion of the last two paragraphs struck off in a direction that left me feeling as though I came to the end of an entirely different article.  

Quote

As we strive to find the right words to describe what we are doing—to our fellow educators, to parents at our schools, and to ourselves—we need to properly balance the appeal of a sound method with an articulation of what that method is designed to achieve. We think that parents are going to respond to our Dorothy Sayers “three stages of learning” presentation, when, in fact, they will respond even more hungrily to our call for them to enroll themselves and their children in the fateful defense of Western Christian culture.

We live in the cultural twilight of a great civilization in which a growing darkness is increasingly blinding us to the wonders of creation and the nature of who we are as beings created in the image of God. It is a battle that will require far more than a mere method.

        

  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doodlebug said:

For an educational philosophy bound up in defining what it is to be human, the article was void of humanity.  

The second article was well done!  I could hear him in it.  However, the bolded (mine) portion of the last two paragraphs struck off in a direction that left me feeling as though I came to the end of an entirely different article.  

Your points are excellent!! The bolded is a profound insight and points to what I have intuitively felt but have been unable to clearly identify.  

I agree that the 2nd article goes off track. I think it does so multiple times and the part you highlighted screamed "buy our products." I think he started off with the premise of defining classical education in terms of subjects vs. a completely incorrect methodological definition but ended up just wandering without a clear point other than "others have it wrong."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ECLECTICALLY classical -- that's what I would call myself, anyway. Gives me the freedom to pick and choose and experiment and respect my kids' preferences.

I remember when I was first investigating homeschooling and went to a presentation by an Abeka representative on teaching phonics...it was all about how daily drill was the answer to everything. I left that session determined NOT to homeschool like that and I've pretty much succeeded, LOL. OTOH, yes, structure does help us focus better, but wearing regular clothes vs. pjs seems to make no difference at all. The most I can manage lately, it seems, is to insist on a bra while in the presence of strangers.

I've always been uncomfortable with the "read and regurgitate" style of Abeka (we did try their grammar workbooks) and Memoria Press (I've tried some of their literature guides). I'd so much rather have a discussion. If the goal is to produce people who can think for themselves, it seems contradictory to insist on workbooks where the goal is to figure out what the answer key wants. They can be a time-savings sometimes, but golly are they dull. But I have a strong bent towards language skills, and learning about classical ed has reinforced the value of those skills. It shows in my kids, none of whom have a science/math bent, but all of whom excel in language arts. So I have to wonder, is it just that TWTM ideas fit us and we would have ended up there anyway?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...