heartofdakota.com

I have a lovely sister-in-law who homeschools her 4 beautiful daughters. They are heads and shoulders above my kids academically.

She is a die hard believer in the Classical approach.

She subtly suggests that mine would benefit from the same approach.

Some people believe that Charlotte Mason and Classical can be combined. But I see the 2 as ABSOLUTELY diametrically opposed to each other. I mean the whole first few years of classical is the rote memorization of facts without making connections. Charlotte Mason is all about connections.

So, I want opinions here... : )

A little over a year ago, I checked into Classical Conversations just because I felt like we could use the group interaction. I looked at it enough to know that it wasn't for me. One of the CC leaders here does somewhat combine CM and CC. She uses the CM approach during the week with living books, uses the memorization of Classical, then does the CC co-op one day a week. To me, it just seemed like way too much work for me and my dc, but those were just my impressions.

Personally, I see CM as a subset of Classical.

I like to look at the big picture and identify my goals. A couple of points I think about when reading your post:

1. Just to qualify, yes, there will be children homeschooled with an entire classic approach that will do very well, in other words, there may be more than one road that leads to the same location.

2. I don't know much about classical, but you mention the first few years are rote memorization. This makes me once again look at the big picture and wonder where they will be in a few more years. I teach at the college level, and I spend all day trying to get my students BEYOND memorization to critical and analytical thinking. I actually have stated more than once that once they start memorizing, learning ends! Obviously that is a bit drastic; we do have to memorize some things, but my goal with my young sons is to leave the memorizing for last and start with theory and application.
One last example from work; I recently gave my students a pretest for a mock board. This was prior to our end of the program review. I tallied how many missed each question and first looked at the questions that 0-1students missed (very few). Guess what, they were all one-step memorization type of questions that did not require any analysis or critical thinking. The questions that were missed the most (very large percentage of the test) were higher up the pyramid of Bloom's taxonomy, in other words students had to go through multiple steps, critically think, analyze the situations, and so forth. Yes, the memorization is important for them to evaluate the question, but students have not learned to go beyond. My student's proved this with their 50% average scores on a test one semester before they are done.

3. It is much easier to retain information in memory if we have worked with it, applied it, learned it in a variety of ways, and so on. The fastest way to forget information is rote memory.
I don't know if that helps, but these are the things I consider when choosing how to educate my children. I want them to learn valuable skills such as critical thinking, application, following directions, etc., and I want them to retain what they learn as much as possible (and obviously we will never retain all of our education, but I hope my boys will retain more than I did).

I combine the 2. They both recommend great literature and living books. They both recommend foreign language.
For my oldest we use Preparing as our main work. I use Saxon math. He does Latin and French. I do outlining along with narration. Narration and dictation are both recommended in classical ed. We are working on being able to draw a map of the world by memory. Since Preparing science is younger for him I added Bio that is taught classically.

For my younger son, I decided not to do chronological history but to do the American history first like HOD. He also studies Latin and French. We are doing Geo Songs to memorize the world. I also added Biology to the science as CM doesn't teach a strong science in the early years.

With both boys we study Aesop, Composers, and Artists. I believe this is both classical and CM.

Countrymom, that was so insightful! Thank you! It brings to mind the character trait we are studying this week in Bigger, wisdom. Yesterday we talked about how wisdom is more than knowledge, it is having the good judgment to be able to apply that knowledge. So I think a better goal for education is not just knowledge, but wisdom and as our verse says the Lord gives wisdom. So HOD is certainly pointing us in the right direction by including God in every phase of our learning.

We did classical for awhile. However, rote memorization, logic workbooks, learning latin in 1st grade, learning 3-4 languages before the end of school, and lots of tests are just not for me. I am sure the method can work very well for some children/teachers. I think that youreally, as a homeschool parent, have to take into account how you teach...and also how your child learns. I have a good friend whose daughter does NOT like to do anything hands on. She prefers to put her nose in a textbook, write essays, etc. Maybe HOD or CM would not be a good fit for this child. However, my sons NEEDED something hands on. They were struggling mightily with textbooks and what they called "boring school." It was not stimulating them to think or to learn at all. School was a chore before we found HOD. Now, my children LOVE the projects, they love the more gentle approach to spelling and math. They love being able to use living books.

That said, I know many kids whose parents use the classical approach and I do not find, as a whole, that their children are "more intelligent" than my own. I don't think the method makes the child more or less intelligent. KWIM? Perhaps the parent you mention just has really smart kids! Maybe they would be just as smart if they were unschooled or sent to ps. Some kids are just rocket scientists in the making!

When you say "heads and shoulders above my kids" what do you mean?

Hi Shannon - here is a copy of Carrie's comments on HOD, CM, Classical - this is a wonderful post she wrote, and I hope it will help as you decide how to dialogue about this with your sister-in-law:
Ah.. the CM/Classical question. This is one with a multi-faceted answer! At HOD we definitely lean more toward the CM-style than the classical. As the ladies have already pointed out CM and Classical have some definite areas of agreement and overlap (most pointedly the reading of more "classic" type books), however the main thrust of the two philosophies is different.

CM-style readings focus on fewer books read more slowly over time, in essence fewer/more quality books done more deeply. Classical enjoys using fact books (i.e Usborne, DK, and other encyclopedia like books) as reading material and also encourages reading of abridgements of classics early on. CM readings are always living, using fact books only for reference, and recommend waiting to read the classics until the unabridged versions can be attempted. Not all classics are considered "good reading" in a CM style education. Classical often focuses on the "Great Books".

CM focuses on narration as the primary method of comprehension. Classical also uses narration, but more for the purpose of learning to summarize. In CM-style narration, kiddos are to borrow words from the author to retell the story. Narrations are often lengthy and detailed and there is no "one right" answer or certain key points that "should be" in the narration. This is the way the child connects to and makes sense of the reading. Classical narration is looking for a more succinct narration with "certain" main key points. There is more of a feeling that a good narration should have these "key points" in it. This is a different form of narration from CM-style narration.

CM and Classical both use dictation, but with different methods. CM uses studied dictation (meaning kiddos study the passage first to fix in in the mind prior to having it dictated). Classical also uses dictation, but does not have kiddos study it first. It is more of a test of what the kiddos know, rather than the practice of fixing it in one's mind.

Both CM and Classical use copywork as a form of early writing practice. This is an area of agreement.

CM uses delayed formal grammar instruction and delayed formal writing instruction. Classical education focuses on early rigorous grammar instruction and also on a rigorous schedule for memorization. CM also does memorization, especially of Scripture passages and poetry, but is not nearly as rigorous as Classical.

Both CM and Classical use written narration, yet the expected outcome is different. Classical uses written narration as a tool for learning how to write a summary through narration. There is more of feeling that there are certain key points that should be included for it to be done correctly. CM uses written narration as a tool to learn writing style by borrowing the author's style and wording to convey the thrust of the reading. It is not meant as merely a stepping stone to summarizing, as classical uses written narration. In CM-style narration, the student is instead trying on various styles of writing using the author's style, until they eventually begin developing their own style of writing.

CM and typical Classical vary quite a bit on their approach to Bible study and integrating God's word throughout the school day. CM believed this was foundational to all learning. Classical devotes very little time during the day to this topic, unless you follow a modified classical approach (such as the Bluedorn's Christian Classical or Memoria's Press's Christian Classical).

Character training and formation of habits were a huge part of CM's focus. She devotes much of her 6 volume series to those topics. It is in these areas particulary that I agree with her. The formation of a child's character and his/her habits is an overlooked topic in Classical education, as the pursuit of wisdom, knowledge, and education is supreme.

CM felt poetry study, nature study, art, and music were important. She studied science through nature, art through picture study of famous paintings, music through listening to classical pieces, and poetry through daily reading of classic poems. Classical looks at these areas as an "add-on", until they are done in the upper levels along with the rigorous study of history. With a truly classical schedule there is little time left in a very rigorous school day to devote to these things.

You can see that at HOD we fall on the CM side for almost all of the things I've listed in the above post. The two areas we have not included yet, are picture study and classical music. However, we have discussed these areas on the board quite a bit, and do add them in with our own kiddos. In future guides, we will hit each of those areas at least once (preferring to do famous artists, composers, and hymn writers when they best coordinate with our history study).

Anyway, from the description above you can see some distinct difference between the two approaches. When reading it, you may hopefully be able to sort out the differences and where you fall philosopy-wise a little better.

As far as "It Couldn't Happen", we have decided against using it with our own kiddos due to the "old earth" perspective in the book. Answers in Genesis had some notes about that particular book that we agreed with when perusing it ourselves.

With the deeper "logic" stage Bible study part of your question..., we have sought deep discussions and thinking about the Bible from the beginning with our guides, so we will continue in that pattern of weighing everything against God's word with our future guides.

Blessings,
Carrie

In Christ,
Julie

Thanks for sharing this Julie!!

Thank you for posting that Julie...what a wonderful comparison!

I loved Carrie's comparison when I read it awhile back. I didn't re-read it today, so I hope I'm not contradicting anything in it. I was thinking that another way to approach the Classical vs. CM discussion (and I agree with others that there is much over lap between the two!) might be to consider how you approach skills vs. how you approach content subjects. I dislike a memory approach for content subjects (history and science) because I think it's not very useful out of context and I don't want to kill the joy of learning. But on skill subjects (math, grammar, spelling), I am more likely to make use of a more classical approach, including some degree of memory work. Even on those, I wouldn't do memory work out of context. For example, I wouldn't teach math facts totally void of conceptual understanding, but I would do some speed drill/flash card work to help get the facts more automatic.

Sorry if I repeated or contradicted anyone else. Great discussion!

Btw, I see other kids that are academically ahead of mine.... and I haven't taken the time to sit down and ponder why.... but I'm not sure I would credit the classical approach for it. I'll have to think about that for awhile. The two families I'm thinking of probably spend more time doing school every day and also started reading earlier (as early as 3!) and have two children (instead of five). Reading early may be more child specific than, environment... not sure. Something to think about it

Lynnw wrote:I loved Carrie's comparison when I read it awhile back. I didn't re-read it today, so I hope I'm not contradicting anything in it. I was thinking that another way to approach the Classical vs. CM discussion (and I agree with others that there is much over lap between the two!) might be to consider how you approach skills vs. how you approach content subjects. I dislike a memory approach for content subjects (history and science) because I think it's not very useful out of context and I don't want to kill the joy of learning. But on skill subjects (math, grammar, spelling), I am more likely to make use of a more classical approach, including some degree of memory work. Even on those, I wouldn't do memory work out of context. For example, I wouldn't teach math facts totally void of conceptual understanding, but I would do some speed drill/flash card work to help get the facts more automatic.

Sorry if I repeated or contradicted anyone else. Great discussion!

Btw, I see other kids that are academically ahead of mine.... and I haven't taken the time to sit down and ponder why.... but I'm not sure I would credit the classical approach for it. I'll have to think about that for awhile. The two families I'm thinking of probably spend more time doing school every day and also started reading earlier (as early as 3!) and have two children (instead of five). Reading early may be more child specific than, environment... not sure. Something to think about it

All of what you wrote here RESONATES in my mind . . . I tend to agree with you on these points. I also agree that the reasons behind some kids being "ahead" or "smarter" are manifold!! Number of kids in the family is a HUGE factor . . . If I only had two kids to school our days would look very different. I also suspect that when the days of babies and toddlers are over/done with (sniff sniff) and ALL of the kids are focused on school then we'll probably excel more than we do now.

I think there is a lot of overlap between CM and "classical" (which is a broad term these days . . . I suppose the term "neoclassical" is more appropriate and even then might need to be defined). It's fun to ponder all of these questions though . . .