It's a funny thing to say, considering that we will soon be embarking on our second year of Classical Conversations, and I will be a tutor for one of the classes this year. We've had a good experience and enjoyed the group (see my summary from last year), but I still cannot reconcile with some key parts of their educational philosophy. Thankfully, however, each family has great freedom in how much or little of the CC curriculum they use in their day-to-day life, so we are continuing on with the group while maintaining our Charlotte-Mason-ish education at home.
Interestingly enough, depending on who you ask and how they define "classical" education, some would say that Charlotte Mason is more in line with the ancient classical educators than CC is. It's a whole rabbit hole and you're welcome to dive down there if you like but I won't join you at the moment.
Instead, I've been working on writing out my objections, not necessarily for you, my (kind and patient) readers, but for myself. There's nothing that quite clarifies your thoughts like writing - sometimes I find that I don't exactly know what I think until I start typing it out. Maybe you know the feeling. So after spending a year with the classical homeschoolers and reading many books, I am attempting to define my own educational vision by explaining the parts of CC that bother me. This is a hefty blog post and if you have no interest in educational philosophy I recommend that you scroll to the pictures and skip the rest.
No hard feelings, I promise.
Four Problems* with CC and other forms of Neo-Classical Education
* Please note that these "problems" are only in my own mind, as they relate to my personal style of educating. CC remains immensely popular and thousands of families have no problems with it at all. If you lean toward other educational philosophies, you might agree with me; or, you might disagree and not view these as problems at all. One philosophy is not necessarily better than another, *unless* you are trying to force one upon your family which does not fit with the individual, unique people you are working with (including yourself!). As Socrates said, "Know thyself;" and I could add, "Know your children." That knowledge will serve you well.
1. Latin is not so important. Many homeschoolers swear by Latin and list off its many benefits, including that it helps you to understand English grammar, it develops thinking skills, it encourages discipline and hard work, and that it aids in understanding vocabulary and scientific/legal terms. All of these are true, but I do not believe that Latin is the only way to learn these things. In fact, the reason that Latin was studied in the past was to be able to read the great books (all of which were written in Latin). This is completely unnecessary today when we can find wonderful English translations of anything and everything ever written. Finally, it's impossible to know what could have been, but neither my husband nor I have ever felt that our lives would be better "if only we knew Latin!"
2. Grammar (by which they mean memorizing vocabulary) is not the best way to start learning a new subject. The new CC catalog that I just received says on page 6, "The first art in learning any subject is to memorize the vocabulary." I disagree. It continues with, "For example, when young children learn to read, they memorize the names of the letters and the sounds they make. Classical educators call this the art of grammar."
This is an incomplete explanation. The actual first step to learning to read is the hours and hours that the child has spent in his parent's lap, having stories read to him. He experiences first hand, with all of his senses, the joy of reading. He feels the touch of his daddy's hand, he sees the pictures on the page, he hears his mommy's tender voice, and if he's a baby, he tastes the book too! Ideally, this child has warm memories and good relationships formed with books long before he ever learns his letters - and that experience is his first step to learning to read.
Other subjects are the same. Sure, you can begin learning about birds by first labeling the body parts and learning their scientific classifications and memorizing what they eat and how their life cycle flows - but this is a dry and lifeless way to begin that is unlikely to spark any curiosity or wonder in your children. This is an inconvenient fact to homeschooling, but it is true: the more work I put into preparing or presenting a new "school topic," the less interest my children will show and the less they will assimilate or remember. Why should they? Mom already did all that work, so they don't need to. A better way to create a relationship with the ideas surrounding Birds would be to perhaps find some - in the woods, in your neighborhood - and observe them. Or draw them. Or build a birdfeeder to attract them. Or get a bird as a pet. Or go see them at the zoo and pick out your favorites. Or listen to them outside, and then try to find the bird that made that particular sound. Or read a book about a bird - not one that is no better than a glorified list of facts, but an actual story that creates a connection with that creature. To this day, I feel a little burst of joy when I spy a red-tailed hawk sitting on a light-pole on the side of the freeway, because it reminds me of a novel that my dad read aloud multiple times during our childhood in which a red-tailed hawk starred as the plucky hero. I still couldn't label the body parts of a hawk for you, or tell you their scientific name - maybe someday if I'm curious, I'll find out - but they bring me joy and I care about them. Isn't that the best result of a true education? To feel joy and to care about an area of knowledge is what will propel your child into life-long learning. Let your child form a relationship with the real thing, before trying to memorize any relevant facts.
One last example: my college training was as a musician, and my first teaching experience was giving piano lessons to tiny squirmy children. I loved it, and for many years I attempted to improve my mediocre skills by attending the National Conference on Keyboard Pedagogy. Yes, there is a such a thing, and yes, most of the attendees have white hair and are draped in colorful shawls. I did not (have white hair) and I was not (draped in shawls). However, some of the very best, nationally-renowned teachers exhorted us to never, ever give the name for a concept (whether it be a dynamic or articulation or style of music) before the child had experienced the sound and feel of it for himself. These teachers had realized that children learn best when they can experience an idea - for example, the feel of bouncing off the keys; the crisp, popcorn-like sound of the notes - before being told "this is called staccato, and here is how we mark it in the music" (memorizing the "grammar").
Going back to the idea of a child learning to read - imagine with me for a moment that a child had never seen a book and never had a story read to him. Now you present him with a list of letters to learn & memorize (which to him appears to be nothing more than meaningless black squiggles). He would probably stare at you blankly and ask, "Why?" Or if he didn't say it, he would at least be thinking it. Furthermore, if he has any intelligence, he would probably, hopefully, resist the process of memorizing these squiggles. It's true that any adult who wishes to learn a foreign language must begin with the new alphabet, as a young child must who is learning to read, but we do not memorize it as a robot, for no other purpose than to acquire that knowledge. We have a reason behind it! Maybe we want to travel there, maybe we are fascinated by the culture and wish to speak the language that permeates it, maybe we simply love the sound or look of it and want to gain the skill for ourselves. Children are people too and I would not insult their intelligence by expecting them to robotically memorize facts without that first step of wonder, curiosity, or experience.
3. Children need synthetic knowledge, not analytical knowledge. Neo-classical education is heavily focused on analytical knowledge. I did not fully understand this distinction until I read Consider This by Karen Glass (which is excellent and I would highly recommend if you have any interest in this topic. If you don't have any interest in this topic, I am sorry that you are reading this and I would recommend that you stop here and go eat a brownie instead). To summarize, synthetic knowledge sees broader connections in a big-picture sort of way, while analytical knowledge breaks things down into their parts. It's the difference between having firsthand knowledge about what a frog looks and feels like, where you could find one in your neighborhood, and how best to catch it with a net; versus having memorized a frog's body parts, scientific classification, and average length, width, and diameter in centimeters. Can you guess which sort of knowledge is more appealing to children? The younger the child, the more their education should be focused on real, concrete, observable parts of their immediate world. This is synthetic knowledge, and this is what they need first.
Karen Glass writes, using the metaphor of education being a feast for children, "Given knowledge in recognizable, understandable form, we consume it gladly and it tastes good. Given mere information without context, we choke on the consumption of it and never think of it again if possible. Synthetic knowledge tastes good and gives us an interest and desire for more. Our affections are engaged and a relationship is formed."
4. More stories, less memorization. I am not against memorization. In fact, I have recently become convinced that our family needs to do more of it. Public schools today often shy away from anything like "drill" or "memory work," but as neo-classical educators (rightly) point out, it's not hard for children, it's good for our brains, and it's often necessary for a thorough grasp of a subject. Memorizing the alphabet, the times tables, or the notes on the staff is an important step to mastery that cannot be skipped. There is great value in memorizing passages from the Bible, or poems, or important documents or speeches. We have done some of this and I plan to do more because it is good and needed. However, I've decided not to spend our valuable time together drilling the memory work that goes along with CC. Much of this memory work consists of facts or information that has no immediate value to our children, and memorization without use or understanding feels dehumanizing (see point #2 again). Nor does it improve their language structure as memorizing poetry and literature does! When we are working on multiplication, we will practice memorizing the times tables - because then they can understand what it means and why we are doing it - but I will not waste my 6 year old's time by drilling it years before he needs it. Our time together is short and precious, and a much better use of it would be to read more together. More stories and more fairy tales and more picture books - this is far more valuable to me, and, I believe, to them. Reading aloud teaches our children, gently but effectively, vocabulary and writing skills and grammar and empathy and courage and understanding of people & cultures and history and geography and so much more! When in doubt, pick up a book.
To clarify, what we did last year (and what we plan to do again) was to only review CC memory work by listening to the review cds in the van as we drive around throughout the week. Just by doing this, I'd say that our boys memorized about 80 percent of the information presented - which is perfect! I don't care about that extra 20 percent. This is easy and painless and I'm glad they have those things in their brains now. My only objection is to time-consuming, arduous review of irrelevant facts during our school day when that time could be spent on something else.
No one knows what the future will bring, and I always reserve the right to change my mind if needed, but this is why I say that we are not classical homeschoolers. I can't agree with these parts of "classical" education. I've tried them, and I do not like them, Sam I am. Not in a box, not with a fox, not in a house, not with a mouse!
But the beauty of homeschooling is that it continues to be as varied and unique as the millions of individuals who use it; and by and large, no matter how you choose to go about it, it works. May God grant us wisdom and courage to see our children for who they are, and to do our part in their education.
"Our part is to remove obstructions, to give stimulus and guidance to the child who is trying to get into touch with the universe of things and thoughts.
Our error is to suppose that we must act as his 'showman to the universe,' and that there is no community between child and universe except such as we choose to set up."
~ Charlotte Mason
Comments