CM Philosophy question

P.S.  I think it was listed in one of your other posts, but the article by Susan W. Bauer on how similar WTM and CM are was helpful to me when working through some of these questions.  There didn’t seem to be much difference, except she was very strong on more formal Lang. Arts instruction…so I add in more just to be safe, since writing is such an important subject (but don’t know if it’s fully necessary….could be my own confidence issues!)

I agree with so many posters on this topic.  YOU are ultimately in charge of your child’s education and you are the one who needs to “make the call” on the issues in light of your individual children, your own personal and financial resources, and what we know now that Charlotte did not know then.  I’ve said before–there are no Charlotte Mason police who are going to show up at your home and take away your “CM license” for not doing something right.  If you have learned from Charlotte Mason’s methods, then IMO you can call yourself a CM-style or CM-inspired or just plain CM educator if you want.

THAT SAID, don’t be too quick to decide that Charlotte is full of beans about something.  Keep an open mind.  I’ve talked to so, so many homeschoolers just getting introduced to CM methods who have not really thoroughly read and studied Charlotte’s own writings and own practices closely, and just “assume” that what “everyone” says is what Charlotte said.  Then, later, upon actually studying Charlotte’s writings, they discover that it’s not at all what they thought, or that Charlotte’s actual ideas were much more nuanced than is commonly understood by the people who talk and blog about Charlotte.  I think it’s very worthwhile to commit to study, learn and read with an open mind, and maybe in the end you will understand something better or differently than before, or perhaps you might even end up changing your own mind.    I know I’ve counseled and talked to many nervous CM newbies who are all concerned that Charlotte “doesn’t want to teach hard science, only nature study” or that she advocates “totally child-led learning” or that she requires lots of tea parties “and my kids won’t like that”  or that “CM works great for girls but not for boys” or that “CM is great for young, young children but you need to switch to classical for teenagers” and on and on, and they’ve all been very surprised when I told them none of the above were true.  I’ve also talked to many who were just convinced that there is no way Charlotte could have been right about the way to teach composition, and so they tried doing some CM methods but using lots of early grammar and writing, only to knock their heads against the wall and end up, years down the road, deciding maybe Charlotte was on to something after all.  (Actually I also fall into this category.) 

Also, take into account that some of Charlotte’s methods build upon each other, and when you use them together, you may very well be getting more than the sum of the parts.  I’m thinking specifically of the parts of language learning that Charlotte lays out for us, but it may apply to other areas as well. 

So, yes, absolutely feel free to take what you need now and don’t worry about the rest immediately.  But consider continuing to study and learn in case there is something you don’t already know yet.  I am still learning, and I’ve been at this for years and read many of her volumes many times over.  And my understanding of CM methods is vastly different than it was my “first” year.  There are still a few things, like the very wise SCM team, on which I just don’t agree.  But I surely agree with her more now than I did then.