I came across this post, and it reminded me of why I really began homeschooling in the first place.
It wasn't really because the few public school teachers and administrators I'd had to deal with were incompetent cretins (although they were), or because I knew my kids weren't being appropriately challenged (although they weren't) or because I found the entire curriculum to be tedious, limited, and anti-intellectual (although I certainly did).
No, the real reason I made that drastic plunge was because the whole situation felt very, very wrong to me. Wrong in the same way as sending your 6 week old baby off to be mass-raised by a succession of disinterested strangers getting paid minimum wage. Wrong in the same way as sending 3 of your young children to daycare to be raised by others while you work in the same daycare caring for other people's kids because you "need" the money so you can afford satellite TV for your room-sized plasma. It is flat-out, skin-crawlingly bizzarre to me.
The school my Dodo went to for the first half of first grade locked all doors and covered all windows except near the office, which was policed by 6 (well-meaning but blindly obedient to the satatus quo) office ladies .
I was not even permitted to peek in the windows at my children! If I wanted to observe the teacher I needed a background check, a written request and 30 days notice! So much for seeing what "really" went on in there...so much for being able to discern if the teacher was competent or even nice!
I couldn't even pick her up. In fact, parents were NOT PERMITTED to pick their child up inside the building, we had to use the "drive-thru" loop. We never saw the teacher except for our 15 minute "conference".
The very thought that a mother would be interested enough in the 7 hours a day her 6 year old child spent being raised by 30 random "peers", made her "way too overprotective" or "smothering". It's not like I am talking about a teenager here, but a 6 year old child!
I think that eventually (high-school, most likely) my kids will blend back into the mainstream conveyer belt, but on their timeline, not a random one based on beaurocratic mandate,and until then it is as it should be, with the actual PARENTS doing the actual PARENTING.
~EH
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Thoughts
"Education is not the filling of a bucket,
but the lighting of a fire."
--W.B. Yeats
This is an interesting quote, and one that I have seen interpreted to fit (or belittle) just about any educational method. The unschoolers are fond of this, and interpret it to disparage "rote" learning, which is seen as a teacher pouring knowledge into a student.
This is an interesting interpretation to me, this contempt for formal education in the classical sense, one that on the surface seems completely true, but once you scratch the surface it reeks of nonsense. This point of view assumes that "rote" (ie "memorized, measurable knowledge of come fact or concept") is useless and that children can and will not be able to use or apply this knowledge. So they basically threw out the baby with the bucketwater.
How does one light a fire, albeit a metaphorical one?
Well, I don't know about you, but I would start with something fluffy and soft, something that will catch fire fast and burn hot, in other words, tinder. If all you did for 12 years was amass a huge random pile of this fluff, and lit it with a match your fire might look impressive for a short while, but then it would fizzle down to nothing, with not even enough smoldering embers left to light a new fire. This, to me, is what comes of a completely feel-good, wishy-washy, child-driven education. There is a time for gathering tinder (the early years, say before age 7 or 8), and a time to move on.
So what next?
Kindling, of course.
Our budding little fires are not ready for whole logs yet, so what do we do? We gather small twigs of just the right size, and dried enough to burn easily, although not as easily as the tinder. These have the benefit of burning longer and stronger than our tinder, but our fire is still not complete. In other words, we collect for them stories and ideas, facts and people, and help them absorb these into themselves.
If this fire is for an important purpose, we know we must take care and build a structure of solid hardwoods around it next. We use the best quality we have available, and we don't just throw it on top and smother the tender flames, but strategically place each chunk. At this stage we must watch ever so carefully to see that our fire has a solid start, protected from rain and the elements until it becomes strong enough to devour the wood on its own. This is a step almost completely lacking in modern education, a structure, a pattern, and a solid mass of knowledge.
At this point if the surrounding areas are dry and fire-friendly, our fire can now spread out in ways we never imagined, swallowing whole forests and fields that we might have never even seen ourselves.
So this brings me back to my original point, how can we presume to build a fire out of nothing?
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Are they seriously blaming the technology for this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/techcreatesabubbleforkids
Seems like an obvious side effect of the peer-saturated/ absent adult school system mentality to me. That and all that feel-good , everybody-is-wonderful -just-the-way-they-are educational psyche bullheck that passes for education in this country.
~EH
Seems like an obvious side effect of the peer-saturated/ absent adult school system mentality to me. That and all that feel-good , everybody-is-wonderful -just-the-way-they-are educational psyche bullheck that passes for education in this country.
~EH
Monday, June 05, 2006
The Latin-Centered Curriculum Quandry
The release of The Latin-Centered Curriculum from the (twangy, hillbilly-accented) people over at Memoria Press seems to reopened that old classical vs neo-classical can of worms, and most of us teetering-on-the-brink worms seem caught somewhere in the middle scratching our wormly heads with our tails in a semi-permanent, "Yes, but..." state.
Or at least I am.
Or am I?
I really can't seem to decide either way.
+Part of the problem is the sheer persuasive power of the classical-educationalists.
Studying rhetoric obviously has its advantages, I won't argue that, but it is also possible to manipulate and distort reality through rhetoric. Hitler was a very persuasive and charismatic leader, with many loyal followers, he must have said things that made sense to his people on some level. But there must have been some people scratching their heads and saying, "Yes, but..."
(No, I don't think the Memoria Press folks are evil dictators set on world domination. I quite liked their Prima Latina, and would recommend their products...I am just philosophizing on their ideas of what education should be.)
It is just like the purpose of the Socratic Method. You use carefully chosen questions to determine what the other person believes, then you use questions to break down his confidence in those beliefs and replace them with a "closer approximation" to reality.
But who's "closer approximation" of reality is it you are installing here? There is no such thing as an objective reality, so obviously you are attempting to make the other person think more like you, or more like Aristotle or whoever you happen to be studying at the time. This is not without its dangers.
I'm not arguing that it isn't beneficial for helping a developing child grow intellectually and gaining a grasp on the complexity of the adult perception of the world, but what happens when you do this to an adult?
Couldn't you conceivably supplant a perfectly reasonable and functional perception of reality with your own, different version not for growth, but for, say, the sale of your books and materials or the spread of your religious worldview?
Just a thought.
+Another thing that has me second-guessing the validity of their version of a "truly classical" education is the fact that while it is based on the education of the rich young boys of Athens and Rome, this form of education was developed predominantly in the medieval times, more specifically in the monasteries. I can think of some other things (the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition) which also developed of this era that I wholeheartedly disagree with.
They didn't call them the "dark ages" for nothing.
Now, this doesn't mean it is not a valid method, or not worth considering, but saying something is worthwhile simply because it is old and has survived so long is silly.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but the middle ages are not particularly well-known for their intellectual enlightenment. Are they really arguing that the people of the middle ages were more intelligent than modern men living in the information age?
To compare the relatively small populations of educated elites in classical Greece or the medieval monasteries to the billions of people in the modern West is hugely unfair.
If we were to segregate the sons of the rich and highly educated and send only them to public school from the age of 10 or 12 while all the "peasants" and girls stayed home I have no doubt they would be suitably advanced. You notice they never mention the learning levels of the 5-12 year old children of beggars, prostitutes, and peasants of the middle ages, yet man students in our public schools are just that. The teachers are forced to concentrate on those poor unfortunates and the other kids’ needs get neglected. (okay, the prevalent anti-intellectualism in our culture plays a part in that neglect as well, but I am getting off topic here).
And while a monastery education was quite the thing for a medieval monk, I am not so sure it is relevant for a 6 year old child in a well-educated, enriched, modern home in the year 2006.
I mean, think about it. I am sure that in those times, learning to illuminate a manuscript (and read and write them) was extremely beneficial for developing the aesthetic sense, small motor-control, visual discrimination etc. but should we then dedicate the next 12 years focusing on that? We could "bring in" other things as they pertain to the manuscript they are so diligently working on, like perhaps weaving a tapestry, spinning wool, or teaching them to hunt wild boar.
Just think of all the nature study they could learn hunting grouse or all the knowledge of anatomy they'd gain if we bought cadavers from the peasants to dissect in our dungeons, why they might even discover the miracle cure of leeching, or maybe laudanum! Maybe through our study of classical Rome they will discover what a tasty food additive lead is, and how beneficial as a building material for water pipes. After all, they never studied science except as it relates to classical times, so they wouldn’t know any better.
To act like there have been no development in thought worthy of study in the last 2000 years is insane.
And for PE they could run around in their 200 lbs of war armor or ride their war ponies, battle each other with little wooden swords!
Monasteries were like an oasis from the surrounding darkness, I get that.
They had libraries full of classical and biblical texts not because they were the best but because that's all there was. They learned Latin, not so they could develop their powers of thought, but so they could be "educated" ie so they could READ those texts.
It was (and is) through the actual reading of meaty texts and literature and the thinking about and using numbers and problem solving that the facilities of the mind were (are) honed. The content, far from being second to the acquisition of the tools, is the PURPOSE of learning those skills. The REASON for those skills.
Phonics is extremely beneficial, as is grammar, as is Latin...but they are just tools, means to an end.
And that end is reading and studying what the greatest minds of all time have to say about the world. We teach them math so they can solve problems and untangle puzzles, maybe discover some new truths of the world. We teach them logic so they can make sense of what they read and hear, know if a writer or speaker makes sense or doesn't. We teach them Latin so they will develop proficiency with languages (our own included) and have daily mental challenge to encourage mental growth. We teach them History so they will see the world and time from a broader perspective than the one at the ends of their noses, so they will be exposed to the most meaningful stories, so they can learn from the past and understand the present.
What possible sense is there to concentrating exclusively on classical history? You have the benefit of not seeing some of the evils that have sprung out of Christianity in the last 2000 years, I guess.
You also miss the whole sweep of growth and change that has taken place. Never in history have things changed so much in so little time, have so many advancements and improvements in daily life happened, and you want to ignore all that and focus on the Greek Gods?
Personally, I love Greek Mythology. I love Latin, and Philosophy. I want to share those things with my children. I think any educated person in modern times should be exposed to those things. I can also see the benefit of systematic, persistent Latin instruction to the mastery level.
But I can't see ignoring 2,000 years of history, mathematical and scientific advancement in favor of it.
Hmm. Guess I am not on the fence at all, am I?
Neo-classicists here, and darn proud of it!
Or at least I am.
Or am I?
I really can't seem to decide either way.
+Part of the problem is the sheer persuasive power of the classical-educationalists.
Studying rhetoric obviously has its advantages, I won't argue that, but it is also possible to manipulate and distort reality through rhetoric. Hitler was a very persuasive and charismatic leader, with many loyal followers, he must have said things that made sense to his people on some level. But there must have been some people scratching their heads and saying, "Yes, but..."
(No, I don't think the Memoria Press folks are evil dictators set on world domination. I quite liked their Prima Latina, and would recommend their products...I am just philosophizing on their ideas of what education should be.)
It is just like the purpose of the Socratic Method. You use carefully chosen questions to determine what the other person believes, then you use questions to break down his confidence in those beliefs and replace them with a "closer approximation" to reality.
But who's "closer approximation" of reality is it you are installing here? There is no such thing as an objective reality, so obviously you are attempting to make the other person think more like you, or more like Aristotle or whoever you happen to be studying at the time. This is not without its dangers.
I'm not arguing that it isn't beneficial for helping a developing child grow intellectually and gaining a grasp on the complexity of the adult perception of the world, but what happens when you do this to an adult?
Couldn't you conceivably supplant a perfectly reasonable and functional perception of reality with your own, different version not for growth, but for, say, the sale of your books and materials or the spread of your religious worldview?
Just a thought.
+Another thing that has me second-guessing the validity of their version of a "truly classical" education is the fact that while it is based on the education of the rich young boys of Athens and Rome, this form of education was developed predominantly in the medieval times, more specifically in the monasteries. I can think of some other things (the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition) which also developed of this era that I wholeheartedly disagree with.
They didn't call them the "dark ages" for nothing.
Now, this doesn't mean it is not a valid method, or not worth considering, but saying something is worthwhile simply because it is old and has survived so long is silly.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but the middle ages are not particularly well-known for their intellectual enlightenment. Are they really arguing that the people of the middle ages were more intelligent than modern men living in the information age?
To compare the relatively small populations of educated elites in classical Greece or the medieval monasteries to the billions of people in the modern West is hugely unfair.
If we were to segregate the sons of the rich and highly educated and send only them to public school from the age of 10 or 12 while all the "peasants" and girls stayed home I have no doubt they would be suitably advanced. You notice they never mention the learning levels of the 5-12 year old children of beggars, prostitutes, and peasants of the middle ages, yet man students in our public schools are just that. The teachers are forced to concentrate on those poor unfortunates and the other kids’ needs get neglected. (okay, the prevalent anti-intellectualism in our culture plays a part in that neglect as well, but I am getting off topic here).
And while a monastery education was quite the thing for a medieval monk, I am not so sure it is relevant for a 6 year old child in a well-educated, enriched, modern home in the year 2006.
I mean, think about it. I am sure that in those times, learning to illuminate a manuscript (and read and write them) was extremely beneficial for developing the aesthetic sense, small motor-control, visual discrimination etc. but should we then dedicate the next 12 years focusing on that? We could "bring in" other things as they pertain to the manuscript they are so diligently working on, like perhaps weaving a tapestry, spinning wool, or teaching them to hunt wild boar.
Just think of all the nature study they could learn hunting grouse or all the knowledge of anatomy they'd gain if we bought cadavers from the peasants to dissect in our dungeons, why they might even discover the miracle cure of leeching, or maybe laudanum! Maybe through our study of classical Rome they will discover what a tasty food additive lead is, and how beneficial as a building material for water pipes. After all, they never studied science except as it relates to classical times, so they wouldn’t know any better.
To act like there have been no development in thought worthy of study in the last 2000 years is insane.
And for PE they could run around in their 200 lbs of war armor or ride their war ponies, battle each other with little wooden swords!
Monasteries were like an oasis from the surrounding darkness, I get that.
They had libraries full of classical and biblical texts not because they were the best but because that's all there was. They learned Latin, not so they could develop their powers of thought, but so they could be "educated" ie so they could READ those texts.
It was (and is) through the actual reading of meaty texts and literature and the thinking about and using numbers and problem solving that the facilities of the mind were (are) honed. The content, far from being second to the acquisition of the tools, is the PURPOSE of learning those skills. The REASON for those skills.
Phonics is extremely beneficial, as is grammar, as is Latin...but they are just tools, means to an end.
And that end is reading and studying what the greatest minds of all time have to say about the world. We teach them math so they can solve problems and untangle puzzles, maybe discover some new truths of the world. We teach them logic so they can make sense of what they read and hear, know if a writer or speaker makes sense or doesn't. We teach them Latin so they will develop proficiency with languages (our own included) and have daily mental challenge to encourage mental growth. We teach them History so they will see the world and time from a broader perspective than the one at the ends of their noses, so they will be exposed to the most meaningful stories, so they can learn from the past and understand the present.
What possible sense is there to concentrating exclusively on classical history? You have the benefit of not seeing some of the evils that have sprung out of Christianity in the last 2000 years, I guess.
You also miss the whole sweep of growth and change that has taken place. Never in history have things changed so much in so little time, have so many advancements and improvements in daily life happened, and you want to ignore all that and focus on the Greek Gods?
Personally, I love Greek Mythology. I love Latin, and Philosophy. I want to share those things with my children. I think any educated person in modern times should be exposed to those things. I can also see the benefit of systematic, persistent Latin instruction to the mastery level.
But I can't see ignoring 2,000 years of history, mathematical and scientific advancement in favor of it.
Hmm. Guess I am not on the fence at all, am I?
Neo-classicists here, and darn proud of it!
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Okay, so I am here killing time, trying to avoid watching the Presidential address this evening. (Shudder) Much as I adore (cough, cough) the president and his brilliant (ahem) plans for our nation, I'd rather not slog through some spin-docotors predigested tripe as it is spewed through ole GW's mouth.
Yetch.
It would be one thing if he was actually speaking to us instead of that pedantic, mind-numbing regurgitated speech.
Oh, well.
It's given me time to think, and tonight I am thinking about my own theory of education. It's developing, somewhere past zygote but not quite full-term, just floating along, absorbing nutrients and changing and growing. I ran a DNA test and was shocked to see that there are an unusual number of parents of this child....either that or I just stole body parts in a Frankenstienish attempt to create a new life.
At any rate, here they are...
John Taylor Gatto--From him I stole a bit of guts, the courage to know I could do it better than they were. He also provided some beautifully derisive metaphors for public schooling that come in handy with homeschool-doubters.
Maria Montessori--the bones. She was one of my very earliest influences, back when my Dodo was still a baby, and the prepared environment has been a part of our life ever since. The backbone of my own sort of classical/eclectic/unschoolingness is my version of the prepared environement. My baby's gonna have great bone structure with genes like this.
Susan Wise Bauer and Jessie Wise--the brains. I know they didn't invent the concept of doing history chronologically, but it was from their book that I first learned it. It was an epiphany for me, a glorious aha! moment. Their book is full of moments like that. I also stole Latin, Greek roots, and the idea of a spine to hold studies together without a structured plan. I don't think they intended it that way, but it works for us.
John Holt--The lungs, the deep breath of relaxation and confidence that learning is happening all the time, that learning is not something that has to be taught.
Early Childhood Educators--okay I am stretching my metaphor a bit with this one, since it isn't one actual person, but I have learned so much from this field. Where else would I have discovered the imaginary play, sensory play, sand tables, dry rice, collages, finger paint and wooden blocks so dear to my heart? From them I stole the heart, that lively beat that keeps us going. Also an inordinate fondness leaning towards obsession for arts and crafts supplies.
Ruth Beechick--her practical feet keep me down to earth. When I am off being obsessed with raising my super-brains to be scientists or mathematicians she grounds me, she says it's okay to slow down and just get through the day, learning is fun and that is how it should stay. Keep your expectations high, but they don't always have to be sky-high.
Mary Poppins--that droll, sometimes prissy but always kindly smile. A smile that speaks in a cultured British voice and says, "I am willing to give you some sugar to help that medicine go down, but if I believe this medicine is necessary then you will be taking it whether you care for it or not. But lets not ruin a perfectly splendid day worrying about it."
Charlotte Mason-- the eyes to see the natural world, and a large old-fashioned skirt just perfect for grasping children, or for shy children to hide behind, or as a nice shady canopy for our long, leisurely nature picnics.
Okay my metaphor is beyond strained, time to exit.
~EC
Yetch.
It would be one thing if he was actually speaking to us instead of that pedantic, mind-numbing regurgitated speech.
Oh, well.
It's given me time to think, and tonight I am thinking about my own theory of education. It's developing, somewhere past zygote but not quite full-term, just floating along, absorbing nutrients and changing and growing. I ran a DNA test and was shocked to see that there are an unusual number of parents of this child....either that or I just stole body parts in a Frankenstienish attempt to create a new life.
At any rate, here they are...
John Taylor Gatto--From him I stole a bit of guts, the courage to know I could do it better than they were. He also provided some beautifully derisive metaphors for public schooling that come in handy with homeschool-doubters.
Maria Montessori--the bones. She was one of my very earliest influences, back when my Dodo was still a baby, and the prepared environment has been a part of our life ever since. The backbone of my own sort of classical/eclectic/unschoolingness is my version of the prepared environement. My baby's gonna have great bone structure with genes like this.
Susan Wise Bauer and Jessie Wise--the brains. I know they didn't invent the concept of doing history chronologically, but it was from their book that I first learned it. It was an epiphany for me, a glorious aha! moment. Their book is full of moments like that. I also stole Latin, Greek roots, and the idea of a spine to hold studies together without a structured plan. I don't think they intended it that way, but it works for us.
John Holt--The lungs, the deep breath of relaxation and confidence that learning is happening all the time, that learning is not something that has to be taught.
Early Childhood Educators--okay I am stretching my metaphor a bit with this one, since it isn't one actual person, but I have learned so much from this field. Where else would I have discovered the imaginary play, sensory play, sand tables, dry rice, collages, finger paint and wooden blocks so dear to my heart? From them I stole the heart, that lively beat that keeps us going. Also an inordinate fondness leaning towards obsession for arts and crafts supplies.
Ruth Beechick--her practical feet keep me down to earth. When I am off being obsessed with raising my super-brains to be scientists or mathematicians she grounds me, she says it's okay to slow down and just get through the day, learning is fun and that is how it should stay. Keep your expectations high, but they don't always have to be sky-high.
Mary Poppins--that droll, sometimes prissy but always kindly smile. A smile that speaks in a cultured British voice and says, "I am willing to give you some sugar to help that medicine go down, but if I believe this medicine is necessary then you will be taking it whether you care for it or not. But lets not ruin a perfectly splendid day worrying about it."
Charlotte Mason-- the eyes to see the natural world, and a large old-fashioned skirt just perfect for grasping children, or for shy children to hide behind, or as a nice shady canopy for our long, leisurely nature picnics.
Okay my metaphor is beyond strained, time to exit.
~EC
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Triumph brings the Void
While reading Doomed to Fail: The built-in Defects of American Education by Paul A. Zoch I came across this quote from William James,
"The Sovereign source of melancholy is repletion. Need and struggle are what excite and inspire us; Our hour of triumph is what brings the void."
This quote really illuminates the recent exponential explosion of need for anti-depressants in our society, doesn't it? We are a society that spends our time and money striving to eliminate struggle in all things, and in nothing moreso than education. Challenge and rigor are dirty words used by elitist, sadomasochist families who want to live vicariously through their children instead of letting them languish their way into a media-soaked, consumptive frenzy of ignorance, depression, and unhappiness like everyone else...right?
-EH
"The Sovereign source of melancholy is repletion. Need and struggle are what excite and inspire us; Our hour of triumph is what brings the void."
This quote really illuminates the recent exponential explosion of need for anti-depressants in our society, doesn't it? We are a society that spends our time and money striving to eliminate struggle in all things, and in nothing moreso than education. Challenge and rigor are dirty words used by elitist, sadomasochist families who want to live vicariously through their children instead of letting them languish their way into a media-soaked, consumptive frenzy of ignorance, depression, and unhappiness like everyone else...right?
-EH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
