One-Sixteenth

November 7, 2008

Should students be able to graduate after 10th grade?

New Hampshire is doing something right.

Yes, absolutely, students who are ready early should be able to escape high school.

Posted by lynx at 11:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 21, 2008

Practical Education

I'm waking up the brain, here. Are you ready for something a little different? After all, House and LOST haven't started up again yet.

I have joined a mailing list on which we are discussing Richard Gamble's The Great Tradition: Classic Readings On What It Means To Be An Educated Human Being. The 650-plus page book is simply selections about education from great authors. We are going to read a selection a week, which means it will take more than a year to get through the book.

Grab your brain and some coffee.

This week's reading was from Isocrates, a sophist and a contemporary of Plato. This is the third week of readings. Last week I learned from Xenophon that Socrates did not altogether approve of subjects such as geometry and astronomy. He classified these subjects as pure theory, and as such not useful. Hey thought such studies were all right to a point, but also that they could occupy an entire lifetime, to the exclusion of useful studies. It makes sense, in retrospect, but I never realized just how utilitarian Socrates thought education should be. This is interesting, because we classical homeschoolers are often derided for teaching our kids all kinds of "useless information." Latin is "useless." So is ancient Greek. So is grammar, the progymnasmata, and reading Plato. It's all useless, right? None of it will help our kids to get jobs.

We argue that although Latin has no immediate practical application, it trains the mind. It's good mental exercise. Studying the ancients puts us in touch with the foundations of our society. The ancient forms trained the greatest minds from antiquity onwards, so they must be good for our kids, too. We argue that such learning is formative, and will allow our kids to turn their minds toward anything.

Would Socrates accuse us of being impractical? Or would he approve as long as such study doesn't exclude useful learning?

On the other hand in order to get the appropriate high school credits for college, and the appropriate credits for a degree, students are expected to learn all kinds of "useless" things. Isocrates' definition of "useless" is this: "none of these disciplines has any useful application either to private or to public affairs; nay, they are not even remembered for any length of time after they are learned because they do not attend us through life nor do they lend aid in what we do, but are wholly divorced from our necessities" (from the Antidosis). Certainly, most of us would put algebra, physics, geometry, chemistry, world history and the like into that category. We don't remember anything, but we had to take the class to get the degree.

Would Socrates accuse the modern school system of being impractical? Are any of us being practical?

Isocrates was more sympathetic to the theoretical disciplines than Socrates was:

For I believe that the teachers who are skilled in disputation and those who are occupied with astronomy and geometry and studies of that sort do not injure but, on the contrary, benefit their pupils, not so much as they profess, but more than others give them credit for. ... For while we are occupied with the subtlety and exactness of astronomy and geometry and are forced to apply our minds to difficult problems, and are, in addition, being habituated to speak and apply ourselves to what is said and shown to us, and not to let our wits go wool-gathering, we gain the power, after being exercised and sharpened on these disciplines, of grasping and learning more easily and more quickly those subject which are of more importance and of greater value.

- from the Antidosis

Maybe in Isocrates we have a rationalization for both the "useless" learning of a classical education in a modern world, and for the teaching of "useless" subjects such as algebra, high school calculus, physics, advanced grammar, poetry ... etc. Even if they are not of immediate use, even if we forget everything we learned, the work still sharpened our brains. It made us better thinkers.

Well, that's the theory.

The general curriculum was both much simpler and much more difficult back in ancient Athens:

Whom, then do I call educated ...? First, those who manage well the circumstances which they encounter day by day, and who possess a judgement which is accurate in meeting occasions as they arise and rarely misses the expedient course of action; next those who are decent and honourable in their intercourse with all with whom they associate, tolerating easily and good-naturedly what is unpleasant or offensive in others and being themselves as agreeable and reasonable to their associates as it is possible to be; furthermore, those who hold their pleasures always under control and are not unduly overcome by their misfortunes, bearing up under them bravely and in a manner worthy of our common nature; finally, and most important of all, those who are not spoiled by successes and do not desert their true selves and become arrogant, but hold their ground steadfastly as intelligent men, not rejoicing in the good things which have come to them through chance rather than in those which through their own nature and intelligence are theirs from their birth. Those who have a character which is in accord, not with one of these things, but with all of them - these, I contend, are wise and complete men ....

- from the Panathenaicus

Whew. Is that all?

So. Character is everything. And what was the best means to form that character? Learning the art of political discourse, of course, guided by teachers who were themselves of excellent character and accomplished in discourse.

That's a pretty sobering list. Most of us, when we think about educating our kids, think of lists of subjects and books. We plan to fill them with knowledge, or put them into circumstances in which they can discover knowledge for themselves. It's much, much easier to teach subjects, isn't it? It's much harder to think that my real goal is to try to turn out Isocrates' educated man - and be a model for that man in the process. Ouch. But even though we all want our kids to have those attributes, the teaching of them tends to take a back seat to subjects. And modeling them? Oof. Yeah. After the next TV show, maybe?

And this list, this character training, was the education that was practical; the character formation, and the subjects that were immediately useful in forming the character.

If we place character education in the forefront of our efforts with our children, I think homeschoolers have it both easier and harder than non-homeschoolers. If your child goes to school, you have to pack all that character training in around the edges, in the evenings, and on the weekends. You might have to counteract "character training" that is happening in school. Homeschoolers, however, have plenty of time. We have all the time in the world to work on character ... and they have all the time in the world to observe and absorb every character flaw we have. Isocrates might not be impressed. I know that many of you homeschool for the purpose of putting character education first; that has never been my primary reason, but I can take this as a call to do better.

Posted by lynx at 10:48 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 29, 2007

A Little Light Schooling

Take a look at this curriculum for a late 18-century Latin grammar school in Pennsylvania. It's scary. I'm scared. Well, I'm scared because I know I'm not working hard enough at making sure my kids have the Latin grammar down pat, and I know we won't ascend those higher heights until I do. But wow.

However, this was the part I found the most interesting:

Through the whole course no book shall be laid aside upon having had but one reading. There may, indeed, be but few books which can be read through, because time will not permit, but whatever part of a book is read once, it shall be the practice of this school to read twice.

I think this is excellent advice. Most booklists for most schools, or most curricula, leave no time for re-reading and re-studying; if a book is worth studying, it surely must be worth studying twice. Or three, or four, or ten times. This is one of the reasons I appreciate the sparse book lists, and the concept of multum non multa, in "The Latin-Centered Curriculum"; focusing on a few great works gives us time, time to re-read and re-study.

I hope I remember to make that time.

Posted by lynx at 9:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 18, 2007

Intelligence

Charles Murray has a series of articles on education and intelligence up at OpinionJournal. Part I addresses the problem of variable intelligence in our educate-them-all, No Child Left Behind school system; in Part II he proposes that too many people of above-average intelligence are going to college; and in Part III he proposes that gifted individuals should have special education, specifically to educate the gifted in wisdom and ethics.

Good stuff.

I tend to wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Murray in these essays. This is one of the issues that drives me nuts about our current school system. Look: Some people are short, and some are tall. Some people run fast, others cannot. Some people have blue eyes, some have brown. These things are fixed. They are part of our physical makeup. We accept that. Well, IQ is a part of our physical makeup as well. It is fairly fixed. Rather than accept this as a fact, we prefer to ignore it, pretend it doesn't matter. We pretend IQ is meaningless.

It is a fact, a pure and simple fact, that not everyone is educable to the same level. Educability is as variable as everything else in our physical makeup. This is where No Child Left Behind and many other programs fall flat; such programs assume that everyone would be educable to the same level if we just tried harder. It doesn't work that way, no matter how we might wish otherwise.

I firmly believe that every child should have the same opportunity for education. Every child ought to have the opportunity for an excellent elementary school education. Every child out to have the opportunity for a college preparatory education. Every child ought to have the opportunity to go to college. Race, socioeconomic status and amount of parental involvement ought to have no effect on a child's opportunity. But that is really all we can do. It is stupid to attempt to force a student with a lower IQ to achieve to the same level as one with a higher IQ.

The end result, as we all know, is a dumbing down of the curriculum so that both children can "succeed." And further, a dumbing down of college entrance requirements and degree requirements so that all students can "succeed."

This is not success. This is selling our national success in favor of national self esteem.

And while we are lowering our standards, our gifted students are in crisis and it does matter. Mr. Murray very accurately describes the problem of gifted kids in todays curriculum: They're bored, and they have no idea how to face a challenge. They have no idea how to face a challenge, and they will be our leaders in 20 or 30 short years.

Bad? Bad.

Of course, I like his recommendation that gifted students be given a classical education. He says:

In short, I am calling for a revival of the classical definition of a liberal education, serving its classic purpose: to prepare an elite to do its duty. If that sounds too much like Plato's Guardians, consider this distinction. As William F. Buckley rightly instructs us, it is better to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University. But we have that option only in the choice of our elected officials. In all other respects, the government, economy and culture are run by a cognitive elite that we do not choose. That is the reality, and we are powerless to change it. All we can do is try to educate the elite to be conscious of, and prepared to meet, its obligations. For years, we have not even thought about the nature of that task. It is time we did.

I've never held with the idea that giftedness carries with it an obligation to use it for the good of others. However, he makes a good point, and it's one I'm certainly going to think about. Read the articles, and tell me what you think.

Posted by lynx at 2:06 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 27, 2006

Antigione

One problem homeschooling parents sometimes have is a lack of comparison material. I know that it doesn't matter how well my son writes at age 10 compared with a typical public school 10 year old. But still, I occasionally wonder how he measures up. If your kids go to public school you might well find me trying to surreptitiously examine their textbooks out of the corner of my eye, or letting my glance linger a bit overlong on the homework they've left out on the table. I'm curious, and I have to grab my comparison data whenever it presents itself.

But now, thanks to Christie's, I have the ultimate writing benchmark. Now, every time I worry about my middle schooler's writing, I'll know where to turn.

Frankly, I'm not certain which is scarier - the writing, or the remarkable restraint on the part of her teacher.

Update: M-MV has more on celebrities writing badly. But ... they're celebrities. Don't we think they can do anything? Look how much Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan are worth, and all my kids can do is write in complete sentences.

Posted by lynx at 8:56 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 13, 2006

Fight Back!

Chris asked if Texas is right or wrong in encouraging classes to fight back when threatened.

You bet your ten-gallon hat Texas is right.

When you are attacked, anywhere, what is your best chance of survival? It's to fight back.

Kids at school are easy pickings. People with violent intent know that the kids are largely helpless, that no one else there will have a weapon, and that the carnage and terror will make him an instant media star.

Yes, teach the kids, and the teachers, to fight! I hate that it's come to this, but if my kids were in school I would certainly feel better if teachers and classes were coached on how to make it extremely difficult for an attacker to succeed. In such a situation, you cannot wait for the powers that be to save you. You have to save yourself, to keep yourself alive until help can come.

While we're at it, perhaps an on-site armed guard is not a bad idea. I don't advocate arming the teachers or the administration, but someone on-site with arms training could be invaluable when a student body is faced with an armed idiot.

Fight back. What is the alternative?

Posted by lynx at 8:35 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 11, 2006

Nice Article on Classical Education

In the CiRCE blog, Andrew Kern has a very nice piece on "What is a classical education?" In it, he explains why the modern usage of the Trivium as educational stages or methods causes more problems than it solves.

Outside of our religious differences, I wholeheartedly agree with everything Mr. Kern says. Using these principles we've stripped our homeschool down to math, Latin, reading and writing; I'm doing my utmost to make sure it's good math, Latin, reading and writing. If you learn these skills well, the content areas not be problematic. It's far better to spend our time and energy on teaching these skills, and teaching them well.

Posted by lynx at 7:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 1, 2006

I Know History Education in America Is Bad ...

But this bad? You be the judge.

Posted by lynx at 2:05 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 23, 2006

Which Latin?

Here's a nifty new comparison of Latin curricula. If you can't find a good curriculum here ... learn Greek instead.

Posted by lynx at 11:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Okay, Jeff

What do you think of this?

Posted by lynx at 8:27 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

May 16, 2006

Latin at the Core

I have an article posted at The Latin-Centered Curriculum site. Read me there!

Posted by lynx at 10:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 13, 2006

Have I mentioned that ...

it's good to learn Latin?

Posted by lynx at 11:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 1, 2006

Decluttering Education

KathyJo says everything I would say about my philosophy of education, if I were saying anything about my philosophy of education. Okay, not everything, because I can go on quite a bit. But yeah, what she said. She's right. All of it.

Posted by lynx at 9:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 19, 2006

But is it real?

I've been here. She's read more math than I have, but I keep coming back to the same kinds of head-spinning questions about math: Well, are numbers real, or aren't they?

Click the link to answer on Myrtle's blog. I know that Mark and Jeff will just make my head hurt. Go make her head hurt instead.

I took physics in high school. It was a somewhat difficult course until the day I had my revelation: it was all made up. It was all a best guess. No one really knew anything. After that, the pressure was off and physics class was fun. (It was probably far more fun for me than for the poor first-year teacher who put up with me after I decided that I could just make up my own answers.)

I'm going to go through Jacob's Algebra/Geometry and read Euclid with Connor, but I'm in no hurry. None. At all. It's going to hurt.

Posted by lynx at 11:28 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 5, 2006

Classical Ed Articles

Mungo has been finding articles on classical education all over the place. I'm passing them along to you:

Traditional Classical Homeschooling, Part I from Heather at Culloden House Farms begins a series tackling this strange, Latin-centered style of homeschooling that I pretend to do.

And here are a couple of op ed pieces from a homeschooling parent: #1 and #2

And do not neglect to stop by Rivendell Press for material you can use in your pursuit of learning. Today you can find stories about ancient Gaul, Alcestis, and the Delphic Oracle (and that's just today)!

Posted by lynx at 11:40 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 5, 2006

Field Trip

In all the time that we've visited Arkansas, we've never actually explored any of Arkansas. So during our Christmas trip this year, I finally grabbed a map to find out what interesting things we might be near.

We took a day trip to go hunting for diamonds at Crater of Diamonds State Park. This is a fun little spot at what used to be the crater of a volcano. It's now 37 acres of diamond-bearing soil, and you get to keep what you find. For the adults and older children, it's a geological adventure. And for the little ones, it's a whole day of digging in the dirt. What's not to like?

We didn't find any diamonds (though someone else did, while we were there!). Staffers are knowledgeable about geology and are on-hand to identify your finds. We gathered mostly jasper, agate, and various volcanic material. Aidan found some lamproite, which is apparently the material in which one finds diamonds. Close! He, at least, was smart enough to pick up the stuff and search in that area - I was chucking it over my shoulder as "not diamond" and moving on.

It's educational, it's fun, the people are friendly and it's not terribly expensive. I'd love to go again.

Posted by lynx at 11:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 29, 2005

Unschooling

No, really, none of you missed anything. That last comment I made about unschooling really did come out of the blue, onto the blog.

I've had some "encounters" with unschoolers in the last couple of weeks, and they usually raise my blood pressure just a tetch.

For the couple of you who read my blog and are not familiar with the term, "unschooling" refers to letting the child decide what, how, and when to learn. It involves supporting the child's interest and facilitating their learning. The theory behind unschooling is that we learn best when we are interested, and when we teach ourselves (or seek out the teacher). Additionally, it's assumed that children will learn the skills they need in life, because through living they will find those skills useful. They'll want to learn to read, write and do basic math because it will be obvious that they need those tools to do anything successfully. They might not choose to learn algebra, or formal grammar ... but if they ever decide they want to go into a career or an avocation that needs those things, they can learn them then.

When a child is set free to learn as his interest dictates, the argument goes, he is passionate about learning. He is creative. He is interested.

I'm fine with all of that. Really.

My problem comes with the flip side of the coin, the belief that if all of the above is true, it must follow that "imposed learning" is stifling, impractical, and wastes the child's time. And that's the nice way to put it. Unschooling, like homeschooling, and attachment parenting, has its fanatics, and fanatics drive me Up. The. Wall.

They drive me up the wall because what they really mean, when they use the term "unschooling," is full-time unschooling. They mean unschooling not so much as an educational method, but as a commitment to a philosophy.

Full-time unschooling can and does work. Throughout time it has produced exceptional people. I've seen it work, and work well. Unschoolers, I am in your corner. Honestly.

However, we are not full-time unschoolers because I don't think that's the best education I can provide for my family. I firmly believe that there are certain skills and areas of knowledge which my kids will be better off learning, whether they will or no. I firmly believe that my kids can only benefit from my experience and knowledge of the world, in guiding them towards subjects they would not have chosen for themselves. (I had to be dragged into that modern art class in college. Who knew I'd love it, and discover a whole new world?) I am convinced that there is value in requiring a child to learn to work hard and well at something that is both difficult and not of his choosing.

I know that many of you don't believe these things. You can argue with me if you feel like it, but frankly I've been through all the arguments.

With those beliefs firmly in mind, we have structured, mom-imposed school. And this lasts for ... three hours a day, on average. Not counting time spent reading.

What happens the rest of the day? Well, mostly, they're free to, er, follow their own interests. Which I encourage and facilitate.

See? We do unschool - not as a commitment to a philosophy, but as a part of real life. The vast majority of people unschool. No, we don't do it full-time, except in short bursts when we need a change, a break, or when life gets in the way of plans. But we do it. (Oddly enough, I also call this process of encouraging/facilitating their own interests "parenting.")

Watch the unschoolers, though. They get twitchy when I say that. Steam starts to come out of their ears. They give me the spiel about how imposing learning on my kids is not unschooling. It disqualifies me. (I once had a woman tell me that she thought limiting my kids' TV time was "too curriculum.") This is followed closely by the spiel about how my imposed learning is sucking the joy of life out of my children, it's coercive, it creates a dependency, it's presumptuous, it wastes their time, and it doesn't work, anyway.

All of those arguments about structured schooling are right some of the time. It's presumptuous and ridiculous to assume they're all happening in three hours a day in my house. Really. My kid may not love Latin, but I can assure you he's not being emotionally or mentally scarred by being subjected to it for 20 minutes a day. And he knows the meanings behind all the spells in Harry Potter. Not to mention the name jokes. (I won't go on here to enumerate the tried and true benefits of a little imposed schooling.)

I hate the ongoing tension between structured school types, and unschoolers. I think it's silly. We all, parents included, spend some part of the day pursuing our own interests, learning what we want to learn or what we choose to learn. We all unschool. Just because I don't do it 24 hours a day does not mean my kids do not benefit from pursuing their own interests, learning how to learn, or exercising their own freedom and creativity.

My previous entry came after yet another run-in in which I was assured that bluebirds would sing, the sun would rise, and everyone would be happy if I just let go of the ridiculous idea that it's of value to coerce any child to learn Latin, and my presumption that I know what's best for my children. The nerve of me. And I guess I'm bitter; I'm very supportive of full-time unschoolers. I think it's a wonderful way of life, and I think a kid can get a fine education that way. It's not for us. I wish that more committed unschoolers could converse with me by admitting that what I do is not for them, but leaving out the fanaticism and evangelism.

Posted by lynx at 12:01 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

May 30, 2005

Scared by Science

This post title is actually a song title. If anyone out there gets it, I'll be amazed and terribly, terribly impressed. I'm not at all scared by science - I just wanted to use the title.

The first time I read "The Well-Trained Mind," I fell in love. Except for the science parts. It seemed to me as if the wonderful Susan Wise Bauer managed to suck the very life out of science, and turn it into just another content area with which we can practice our outlining and writing skills.

Ugh. No. Even though I was enamored with the rest of her program, I knew we'd never do science like that.

And we haven't. In fact, through reading "Climbing Parnassus" and "A Thomas Jefferson Education," I don't believe that formal science is necessary in the elementary years at all. I'm not convinced it has a place in the middle grades, either. I am convinced that it has a very important place in high school, preferably after a child has grappled with algebra.

We all love science, though, so of course we're going to "do science." It's not science that I have a problem with, it's a formal course. To begin with, at the elementary level these courses are largely composed of inane content. These are a waste of everyone's time, and teaching them does not create scientists.

I flirted with the ideas in "Nebel's Elementary Education" for awhile. Dr. Nebel's science chapters are superb, packed with information I never knew; his approach is to teach science experientially, and only as the child shows interest. I still use Nebel's as a reference, but it didn't turn out to do much for us otherwise.

Last year I stumbled across this free workshop: How to Teach Science. Teresa, the brains behind the workshop, has a different approach to science. She says we should start with chemistry, and teaching the skills of observation and accurate description. She says we start with chemistry because chemistry is the basis for so many other things, such as biology, and much of physics. Nebel, for contrast, believes that young elementary students cannot grasp something as abstract as atoms and molecules, and suggests leaving chemistry alone until later.

I liked Teresa's workshop, so I have decided to give her ideas a try. My kids beg for a formal science program. By happy coincidence they beg for chemistry, and Teresa suggests starting with chemistry. So far so good.

Next problem: Have you ever looked at elementary-level chemistry programs? Ninety-nine percent of them are crap! Most of them don't get more advanced than combining vinegar and baking soda. Oooh. They discuss the three states of matter, but that's often it. Then they wrap up with a bunch of experiments that have ooh, shiny results, but don't teach ANYTHING.

I decided on Real Science 4 Kids chemistry, Pre-Level 1. RS4K is a solid program that presents actual, good scientific information in a way young children can understand. It turns out that Pre-Level 1 is a little young for my kids, but still, the information is good and the experiments actually teach something.

I want to strike a balance, though, between my kids' need to feel like we are "doing a chemistry program" and teaching via the ideas in Teresa's workshop. So like everything else (except math and Latin), we are approaching this casually.

Last week we read through the chapter that teaches about how atoms combine into molecules. The experiment had us taking large and small marshmallows and toothpicks, and making molecules. The instructions had us combine them according to different rules, teaching the kids that atoms only combine according to certain rules. I brought out a periodic table for them to look at, as well.

Voila! That afternoon we were the homeschooling poster family. They made molecules for hours (except for the three year old who, predictably, ate all of his). Then they discovered the periodic table.

"Mom, what does 'atomic number' mean?"

"Mom, does this table tell me how many connections an atom can make?"

"Mom, what does 'element' mean?"

"Look, platinum is on here. Does that mean there are platinum atoms?"

"What happens if I put hydrogen and chlorine together?"

Heh heh heh.

How about that: the little kids do grasp this abstract chemisty stuff. Set 'em up with a periodic table and turn 'em loose. Who knew?

Since then I've ordered this Molecular Model Set (though I was disappointed; I thought it would come with some kind of pamphlet or activities, but it doesnt), and Teresa's version of the periodic table. Now I need to find a good chemistry reference so we can look up the answers to their questions. I remember a little chemistry, but not enough!

Posted by lynx at 10:08 PM | Comments (11)

May 16, 2005

For Mungo - Nock on Classical Education

At twelve or thereabouts, for my sins I was sentenced to do time over the "standard authors" which a schoolboy at my stage of progress was supposed to read, -- Caesar, Xenophon, Homer, Virgil, Cicero, -- and God wot it was the dullest, dreariest, most unrewarding task I ever set my hand to. If the language-difficulties attendant on it had been even a shade more obstructive than they were, I would have thrown Greek and Latin to the winds forever. These were the least of my troubles; my tribulations rose from the substance of what these wretched men wrote about; it was all so far over my head. I was not interested in bridge-building, in Ariovistus or Vercingetorix, or in what the father of the gods and king of men had done for Aeolus. ...

The schools in our town were somewhat worse than none, and I did not attend them, but had hitherto gone on with my studies in the same happy-go-lucky-fashion as in Brooklyn. My readings in Greek and Latin had consisted of scraps culled from various works; they were mostly short, and all were appropriate to my age. They dealt with matters well within the compass of a child's understanding, affairs of ordinary life, ordinary experience; many of them were light, amusing, humorous. This slipshod curriculum was invaluable to me in one respect. It set me on my way to see the men and women of antiquity as I have always since then seen them, not as story-book heroes and heroines, but as people exactly like us. ... This may seem a commonplace observation, perhaps a stupid commonplace; yet it does point straight to the enormous difference between knowing history and understanding history. ... Nine-tenths of the value of classical studies lies in their power to establish a clear commonsense, matter-of-fact view of human nature and its activities over a continuous stretch of some twenty centuries.

I wish he went into more detail about those casual scraps of Greek and Latin. Later he mentions "Aulus Gellius's scrapbook, Pliny's letters, bits from Cornelius Nepos and Eutropius; epigrams of Martial, Ausonius, the Anthology; fables out of the Graeca Minora, stories out of the Vulgate ..."

Er ... whatever those are. I know the words "Pliny" and "Vulgate" and "Graeca Minora."

He continues:

The authors whom tradition has lebelled "preparatory" have a great place in literature, but that is far out of a child's reach. My notion is that Caesar and Cicero come in with Tacitus, Sallust and others, far along in one's course, as topical reference-reading in a critical study of Roman political history, and Homer and Virgil should in a critical literary study based on Aristotle's Poetics. Taken thus, the student will read and re-read them with understanding and pleasure, but taken as a corpus vile of "preparatory" material he will detest them.

Thoughts? Mungo?

I would certainly like my kids to read Latin and Greek that they find interesting, at least at first - though I would guess that my particular children would actually like Caesar. It's frustrating to not be able to make these judgments myself; through my own ignorance I have to depend on what others hand me as appropriate for teaching. Yes, yes, I'm working on it. Where did I put that Henle grammar?

Posted by lynx at 8:55 AM | Comments (2)

May 15, 2005

Smart, Dumb, Literacy, Elitism and Albert Nock

I've long wanted to read Albert Nock's Theory of Education in the United States. It's not in our library system, and while waiting for ILL I decided to read his autobiography, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man.

I'll have to find a copy of my own, because of course I can't fill the library book with scribbled notes and highlightings. I find something to copy down on every page. This is delightful reading, even though I only understand about half of it; one day I will go through it again and track down the allusions, the foreign quotes, all the references I don't understand. Still, his ideas are clear, especially as he speaks on education.

Do our more complex TV and computer games make us smarter? What about the fact that vastly more people are literate today than in the mid-1800s? Doesn't that alone make us smarter?

Maybe.

Sure, more of us can read. Most of us can read. I've always wondered how much better off we are for our high rate of literacy. It ought to be a no-brainer. The goal of universal literacy has always been a goal of democratic levelling: when we can all read, we will all be that smart. But of course there's more to reading than being functionally literate.

Here is what Albert Nock had to say about literacy in the early 1900s:

One might assume that as the level of literacy rose, the level of general intelligence would rise with it, and consequently that the economic demand for good literature would also rise. This, roughly, was Mr. Jefferson's idea, and indeed it has always been at the root of our system of free public instruction for everyone. It has, however, somehow failed to work out according to expectation. ... On the contrary, as I discovered as long ago as my undergraduate days, very few literate persons are able to read, very few indeed. ... I do not mean that the great majority are unable to read intelligently; I mean that they are unable to read at all -- unable, that is, to carry away from a piece or printed matter anything like a correct idea of its content. They are more or less adept at passing printed matter through their minds, after a fashion, especially such matter as is addressed to mere sensation, but this is not reading. Reading implies a use of the reflective faculty, and very few have that faculty developed much beyond the anthropoid stage, let alone possessing it at a stage of development which makes reading practicable.

Ouch. He's elitist and hyperbolic, but he does have a point.

Well, that would be me. Anthropoid. Scarier still is that as I don't have a well-developed reflective faculty, I certainly don't know how to go about getting my kids one. That's not true. I have ideas of how to learn to read reflectively, and pass the skill to my sons. It's stunning that I have a degree in literature, and I can just barely read. At least I know it. That's something.

Posted by lynx at 3:09 PM | Comments (5)

May 14, 2005

What's bad for us makes us smarter?

I'm moving this post over from the backup blog, because it has generated some interesting comments. I've moved the comments over as well, using the linked Blogger profiles and any email address on that site as the url/email for the comments here. If no email was linked, I used an email address that goes to me, as I have not yet reconfigured my comments to not require some email address. If anyone would like me to change the url/email to something else, just let me know.

Check out this review of a book called "Everything Bad is Good For You" by Steven Johnson. The book talks about how we are in general smarter today, even with our indulgence in video games and TV. In fact, he thinks that it is the TV and video games that are making us smarter.

It's an interesting idea. I quit worrying about my kids and computer games long ago. They play on the computer every day. They play games like "Civilization," in which they game historical scenarios, over and over again. For instance, while we read about the Revolutionary War, Connor went to his computer every day and gamed the war from different angles. Sometimes he was the Americans. Sometimes the British. Sometimes the French. Sometimes Cornwallis would be killed early in the game. Sometimes key battles would go to the other side. He got to play with ideas, to see one version of "What would have happened if ...?"

Is this bad for my child's brain? Hardly.

(Conversely, "Civilization" has at times paved the way for our historical studies. "Napoleon? We have a scenario about him! He was French ...")

I had never thought about TV helping us to be smarter, though. Johnson's theory is that TV is so much more complex these days, demanding more and more from the viewer, that it helps our brains to make connections and stay active. I'm sure that doesn't hold true for my kids' daily dose of Cartoon Network (Or does it? Someone tell me it does, quick!), but he makes an interesting point. TV is far more complex today than it used to be. The viewer is often asked to keep track of multiple, shifting plotlines, to form hypotheses, and to generally be mentally engaged in the story. "Lost" is a prime example of this type of show. (And by the way, did anyone notice that Kate and Tom made that tape on 8/15? Hmmm??)

I'm not ready to say that TV can help my children's brains, but he makes some good points. I don't know, though, how kids with extremely limited TV/video game access compare. Maybe we're all just getting smarter because we have plenty of nutritious food, good medical care, and leisure time, and as a result we seek/create more complex entertainment. Or both.

Posted by lynx at 12:44 PM | Comments (9)

December 1, 2004

On the Western-Centric Aspect of Classical Education

This was originally posted on my first blog. The original, with comments, can be found here. Comments and trackbacks were not moved to this site.

In which I show my racist and elitist side
... at least that's how some folks seem to see it.

In the classical education discussion below, a poster asked how I handle the western-centric aspect. That's a good question, and Sarah gave a nice answer.

Classical, Latin-based education is, by definition, the study of Western thought and culture. We study this because 1) it is the main basis of our current culture; and 2) it contains much of the best art, literature and philosophy the world has ever produced. This means that my kids education will be based on Western works and ideas, and that all other cutures and works will be largely viewed, and judged, through that lens.

However, a method of education is a tool, and only a tool. Classical education can be used to present an education that is focused on one people alone, that is elitist and even racist. But when such a thing happens, it is more the fault of the parent and teacher than the method of education.

Once I had considered using some Waldorf materials in our homeschool. I was cautioned against it by one person, who told me that Rudolph Steiner's philosophies promoted anti-semitism and other forms of racism. Okay. Obviously I don't want that in my home, but I am also capable of filtering material and throwing out what we don't want.

In short, giving your kids a classical education does not mean they will have blinders on, and only know about dead white men. If learning about the world's diverse cultures, peoples, religions, thougts and arts are important to you, you will allow that interest to rub off on your children. You'll read books, attend performances, go to museums, and talk to live people. Focusing your academic work on one area doesn't have to spill over into the rest of your life.

However, classical education does not foster multiculturalism. Multicultural education tells us that all cultures are equally worthy of study. Classical education tells us that some cultures are more worthy of study than others. Classical education more traditionally encourages the student to be discerning, and make judgements based on the great works of Western civilization; multiculturalism would tell us that this is racist and demeaning. Multiculturalism tells us that we cannot presume to judge other cultures.

We've all seen glimpses of a world in which all cultures, all religions, all ideas are upheld as equally good and equally worthy. It's a nice idea, but ultimately a problematic one. It leads to a greater world understanding, yes, but it also leads to confusion about morals and values. It leads to a lack of discernment. We must judge, and judge well, in order to know bad from good, right from wrong. We can only judge based on our own criteria. If we have no criteria ... what do we do?

I do want my kids to study and have some understanding for other cultures. I think it's extremely important that they understand that our way is not the only way, our mindset is not the only mindset. It's important that they understand not only the benefits of our Western culture, but also our failings and drawbacks. Nor am I saying that these other cultures have nothing good to offer us; of course they do. But I'm not afraid of giving my kids a yardstick, and classical education provides a yardstick that has been useful for many hundreds of years.

Posted by lynx at 9:05 PM

November 30, 2004

Classical Education

This post originally appeared on the first version of my blog. The original, with comments, can be found here. Original comments and trackbacks have not been moved to this site.

I've said, for years, that in our homeschool we do classical education. The truth is that my definition of classical education has completely changed, and our homeschool along with it.

When I first read The Well-Trained Mind I was jealous. That was the education I had always wanted for myself! It was rigorous. It was thorough. It tackled hard subjects like Latin and Logic. It required students to read original texts. It emphasized language and history. Classical education! I knew immediately that it was what I wanted for our children.

It took a couple of years to learn how to implement TWTM in our family. The schedule examples in the book are unrealistic (Susan Wise Bauer didn't want to include them for this very reason, but says the publisher insisted). It took a great deal of tweaking and experimenting to get the benefits of TWTM without feeling that we needed to spend hours chained to a desk. We kept going back over our educational goals and philosophies, to find which parts of TWTM were worth keeping, and which we needed to ignore. In the end we made it work.

Funny thing about reevaluating your underlying philosophies: you tend to keep doing it. You tend to keep thinking, analyzing, reading. At this time a few threads popped up on TWTM message boards, challenging us to define "classical education." I was surprised to find that the defintions the WTMers came up with were vague. In the end, it seemed that no one could definitively say exactly what a "classical education" is. And frankly, neither could I.

How odd.

This is what led me to read Climbing Parnassus earlier this year. When I finished the book I found I was not only able to define classical education, I was able to define it in two different ways. The first definition is: education which is rigorous, language/history based, and uses the educational stages of the Trivium (grammar stage, logic stage, rhetoric stage) as an organizing principle. This is the definition TWTM uses. The second definition is much simpler: classical education is education that focuses on classical languages, literature, history and arts, and uses the educational subjects of the Trivium (grammar, dialectic, rhetoric) as its organizing principle.

The former definition is currently the most popular. When you hear that a school, or a homeschool, provides a classical education, they are most likely pursuing a rigorous education with the process of the Trivium as their organizing principle. However by using the Trivium as process instead of content, one school's classical education can look very different from the next school's version. The content of the education can be tailored to fit modern expectations, or state requirements. Latin is desirable, but not at all necessary.

As for the latter version - well, it seems to lack relevance. How is a modern student going to manage in the modern world if most of his studies are spent on learning Latin, Greek, the Trivium as content, and classical history and literature? This classical education is nothing without Latin. Latin is the foundation upon which all other education is built: Latin grammar, the logic of Latin syntax and translation, the rhetorical skills necessary to express oneself not just competently, but well in Latin, and by extension in English.

In this kind of education grammar, logic and rhetoric are what you learn. You learn how language works, you put the pieces together and you use it well. You learn Latin. You learn Greek. You read Latin and Greek, and in reading Latin and Greek you read the philosophy, history, values and aesthetics that are the foundation of our Western culture.

How did this split in definitions come about? The modern interest in classical education was largely spearheaded by Dorothy Sayers' essay The Lost Tools of Learning. In this essay, Ms. Sayers gives us a blueprint for taking the elder concept of the Trivium and using it to fit a more modern form of education. It is she, I believe, who first talks about the Trivium as process, instead of content. (If I'm wrong, let me know! Please!) By defining the Trivium as a process (first you learn the grammar of a subject, then you make logical connections within the subject, then you express original thoughts on the subject), classical education could be freed from the confines of its historical content. Latin, for instance, is still desirable and beneficial; but by using the educational process of the Trivium, you can get the effects of studying Latin but focus on more modern subjects. This idea has caught on like wildfire, and if you search the internet for "Trivium" you will find description after description of the psychological/educational process of learning.

But this is not what classical education used to be. The Trivium has been a part of "classical education" for hundreds and hundreds of years. Originally the Trivium simply meant grammar, dialectic and rhetoric - the three areas of study that were foundational to higher learning. Grammar meant Latin grammar, as the primary focus of any decent education was to enable the child to speak, read and write Latin. Once the Trivium was mastered, a student could go on to the Quadivium: Music, Arithmetic, Geometry and Astronomy. The Trivium was not a conscious process: you simply had to learn grammar first in order to become proficient in Latin. And you were not educated unless you knew Latin. First that, then everything else.

I've always been attracted to the education of bygone times. It did the job, and did the job well, for many hundreds of years. That's got to mean something. After reading Climbing Parnassus I have become convinced that modern, neo-classical education, while rigorous and excellent, is not my idea of what classical education should be. Classical education is the study of the classics: language, literature, arts, philosophy, aesthetics and history. I agree with the statement that you can't just add Latin to a curriculum and call it classical education. However, I am drawing my line in the sand: if you're not teaching Latin, you're not doing classical education.

"Classical education" has become one of those terms that is so desirable, everyone wants to claim it. It's almost as if a "rigorous" education isn't good enough any more - no, it must be "classical." Or maybe it's simply that "rigorous" is becoming synonymous with "classical." Last week I overheard a woman describing a friend's homeschool as "... school at home, classical education. You know, like Bob Jones or Abeka." Er, what? Neither of these programs are classical. Abeka certainly is rigorous, but neither of them fit either definition of classical education. It doesn't have to be that way. An education can be excellent, thorough, and rigorous without being classical. A classical education is not the only way to be well-educated.

If you're going to do classical education, however, I don't think it makes much sense to throw out the tried and true content. Sure we have to bend some in our modern world. Some of us have state requirements to meet. In some areas it would just be stupid to cling to doing things as the Romans did. But we can keep the Latin, and use that as our foundation.

Posted by Steph at November 30, 2004 12:14 AM

Posted by lynx at 8:58 PM | Comments (2)