One thing to remember—doing science in a “Charlotte Mason way” does NOT preclude using textbooks in the upper years. And using texts needn’t ruin anyone’s love of anything, not at this age. By the upper high school years, a student ought to be able to HIMSELF find delight in learning anything, in any way. After all, the real world coming at him shortly isn’t going to be all nature notebooks and family read-alouds. Joy can be found, and learning can be found, indeed MUST be found if adult happiness is to exist at all—in manual labor, in repetitive tasks, in uninspiring texts, in inordinately long labs, in interminable business meetings, in an ice storm feeding the cattle, in lectures delivered in monotones— In fact, IMO, the “real” Charlotte Mason way must include this very teaching and experience. Not, perhaps, at age 7, but certainly by 17, a child should know intimately that all books are not exciting, that all learning is not painless, that all tasks are not fun, but that deep satisfaction is found in the worthy performing, regardless of its “fun” level. How to extract the value from a text that may not be what you’d have chosen for your relaxation reading? That is a question very profitably addressed in the high school years. How to enjoy it anyway? When one can do this, one is truly educated in the “Charlotte Mason way.” How, exactly, would Charlotte approach, say, physics, if she were teaching in our day? I am quite certain that, in the upper years, she would not be seeking an easy way out, or trying to make the topic palatable–it is already interesting, AND difficult, and I think she would have embraced that and not shied away from it, and by her example taught that difficulty and effort are NOT the opposite of happiness and joy. They are, instead, its essence.
Just a thought from a mom who is working on graduating college science major #2, with #3 entering high school years soon.
