Name: Spreading the Feast Gathering
Start: 2025-07-11T00:00:00-05:00
End: 2025-07-12T23:59:59-05:00
Location: LaGrange, KY

Tagged: classical education, karen glass, Neo-classical education

This topic has 61 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by Sonya Shafer.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 62 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →

Author
Posts
July 27, 2014 at 2:52 am
missceegee
Participant
@TailorMade – I have and continue to value your thoughts and other’s on this board.
If any of you have ever felt intimidated by AO, or CM schools because you can’t, or won’t embrace their version of Charlotte Mason, you might understand how another mother might find some of the comments in this thread discouraging, even damaging to their souls. It hurts to be accused, even softly, of not wanting to view your children as persons. Whether intentional, or not, the words written in this thread are read that way. In person, maybe it might appear a bit softer, but I’m not certain of that either.
The discussion was about the differences in the philosophies and was never accusatory. I am the first to admit I am a blunt and straight-forward person, but to compare the philosophies using the words of their originators and the methodology each uses seems fair game in a discussion like this. I KNOW that the great majority of homeschoolers love and care for their children and want to to right by them no matter what type of schooling they use.
I hope this is shedding some light on how parents who combine parts of classical education can so easily mesh them with CM methods. Maybe these similarities haven’t been pointed out before. It’s hard to see them from the outside, just as it’s difficult for a diehard classicist to recognize that somehow, over time, everything will happily fall into place for the children of CM pursists. They may see it as an organized version of that sinister method called unschooling…..because they misunderstand from their point of view.
I have heard it all before. I purchased the CC memory app at the recommendation of a CC friend and flipped/read (whatever you call it with an app) it. I see it as a a wonderful tool for those who find the info. useful according to how they choose to educate. It isn’t useful to me in the CM paradigm I have adopted for my family. I have read The Well Trained Mind, attended a Susan Wise Bauer seminar or two, even tried some of the ideas our first year. I get your point about purists not seeing the other side. I get it, I really do, but none of it matters when we are talking about the paradigms. I didn’t come up with the paradigms and write about them. I simply read them and try to figure out what I think and where my family fits within it all. I also enjoy discussing the philosophy of CM and find the comparisons fascinating. There ARE differences.
We should really be encouraging each other to love our husbands and children and to be kind to one another. I’ve probably been a frustration to many of you off and on, but just have to say that you all have different gifts and I learn from each of you. I really don’t like watching either side be misunderstood, or misrepresented. I think you each have valuable insight based on your past experiences and current studies which can be used in your homes to educate your children well. They can be a blessing to others who are near to the same page, have learned it previously, or would like to be inspired in a new way. It’s fun to know what everyone is reading and learning. But, if we keep in mind the idea of the person, we need to leave room for each mom to be a person and learn and teach from where God is leading her and her family. He may have need for moms to be a witness in all sorts of communities. If we rule out His individualized instructions for each of us based on an adherence to human philosophy/methods, we may be ruling out an unexpected blessing. A dear friend, a new recipe, fogiveness, courage, rest, or the title of a good book might be in the camp over yonder. I know if I hadn’t stuck around here long enough to have someone shed light on the reasons for reading Plutarch, I’d have missed knowing the right gift to give to one of our oldest children.
I don’t see what the discussion about educational philosophies has to do with encouraging us to love our husbands and children. That’s a wonderful thing to do, but outside of the scope of the discussion I began. I agree that these are human philosophies and that we can all learn from one another. I like the part I put in bold and agree completely.
Again, the entire point of the post was not to elevate CM to the place of an idol, nor to say all other philosophies are bad, nor that those who meld any and all are less in any way. NONE of that was the point.
I respect your opinions and wish you nothing but the best in your educational journey.
Christie
July 27, 2014 at 2:54 am
missceegee
Participant
I have spent entirely too much time discussing what was never my point on this thread. I am bowing out now.
July 27, 2014 at 6:35 pm
TailorMade
Participant
Christie,
I’m sorry that I’m either not able to see the same “why,” or agree with it. I’m not certain which it is at this point. But, that’s my why of bringing up our husbands and children because that’s my “ought” and I spent too much time away from that recently, again, and I’m headed back to that focus.
I’m also sorry that I’m unable to write clearly enough about where I think the discussion got away from your original intent.
I’m blessed by your willingness to share what you’re doing at home and in your co-op/personal study. I have had to confess envy and jealousy at times over both, in fact. But, I have mostly gained encouragement from what you’ve shared anytime I’ve read your posts.
I’m hopeful your co-op and book studies will continue to be fruitful and certainly pray you have the health and stamina to continue in your ministry to your family and others.
July 28, 2014 at 12:15 am
Bookworm
Participant
I think there is still a main difference here. There IS a very common underlying perception in classical circles of ALL kinds that there is a body of knowledge, and this body of knowledge should be uniformly applied to each child. Each child, while a person, is really a receptacle to fill with knowledge. This is why, for example, it makes sense to a classical mindset to memorize the tsars of Russia, or the presidents of the United States. However, if one looks at the issue from more of a CM mindset, memorizing a list of tsars makes no sense AT ALL. This, in fact, is one of the things that drove me from classical education. That, and the insistence on lots of grammar in early ages, and the calling of children things like “poll-parrots.” My observation of my children did NOT match the neoclassical one. My children did NOT “poll-parrot” until age 12, magically start to reason, then turn to rhetoric at 16. Rather, they have displayed parts of all of this ALL ALONG and the whole idea of “do this because this is grammar stage, then do this because this is reasoning stage” made no sense to me, and I was very relieved to find a philosophy that agreed with me on that. If you look at the world through a more CM lens, then you’d want to memorize scripture, to hide the Word in your child’s heart; you’d do a little poetry to nurture the soul and learn to recite well; and then there isn’t a whole lot more reason to do that. Why would you learn the tsars of Russia? How will that nurture the soul, inspire the imagination or excite curiosity? IF on the other hand you are coming from a different philosophical angle, where it is important to learn a fixed body of knowledge in order to be “educated”, and you decided the tsars were part of that body of knowledge, then it would make perfect sense to do that. WE ARE JUST SAYING that the difference is in which philosophical direction you come from. It is perfectly fine to be a neoclassicist at heart who hangs out on a CM board to better implement some CM methods. Great! Welcome to the feast! But when we say CM philosophy IS DIFFERENT than the underlying classical philosophy, we have good grounds, good evidence and good company in saying so, and we ought to be able to say it! We aren’t accusing anyone of hating children; let’s let the politicians act like that. It’s OK to differ philosophically, but it is more than OK, in fact IMO it is necessary, to detail the differences and where they lie, so we can each locate ourselves on the philosophical continuum and figure out what we want to do with our individual children.
July 28, 2014 at 12:24 am
MissusLeata
Participant
And I’m pretty sure that all along everyone has said that there are differences and that a couple of us just wanted to point out that *some* of what was being reported about CC wasn’t correct.
July 28, 2014 at 12:31 am
Bookworm
Participant
So it ISN’T true, in your opinion, then, that CC has children memorize much more than most CM parents do? I guess I’m just not seeing how this can be, considering those of us who have seen materials. ?? I guess I’m still puzzled over the “explosion moment.”
July 28, 2014 at 12:49 am
TailorMade
Participant
I suppose I was originally trying to give examples that show more similarities than differences for common ground. And that not every classical educator considers the child a receptacle. Now, I’m just speechless and disenchanted.
Peace be with you.
July 28, 2014 at 1:02 am
MissusLeata
Participant
I totally think CC has children memorize more than most CM parents would do. Never disagreed with that. (Said over and over that I don’t push memorization in my home.) I disagreed that the “facts” are all out of context. That and the idea that classical parents consider children less than human have been my only points of disagreement.
And I agree with TailorMade. I’m very disenchanted with this thread/board now. Why do we need to villanize those who do it differently? Must we insist that Leigh Bortin, at her core, has a wrong view of children just because we use a different approach?
July 28, 2014 at 1:32 am
LindseyD
Participant
I’ve stayed out of this discussion because I felt I didn’t have much to offer. I don’t know a whole lot about CC, so I can’t give an opinion there. I am a CM purist and won’t apologize for that at all. I would simply like to say that I’ve read this thread from beginning to end several times, and in no way do I find that the OP was trying to be critical of classical education. She pointed out the differences from her very well-researched perspective, backed up her research with specific examples, and shared how CM is better for her family.
I’m just going to state the obvious here: THIS IS A CHARLOTTE MASON FORUM. THIS IS A CHARLOTTE MASON WEBSITE SELLING CHARLOTTE MASON RESOURCES. If you want to unschool, do unit studies, use a classical approach, or do online homeschooling, more power to you! No one on here is going to criticize your family for doing what you choose. But, PLEASE don’t be offended if you come to a CHARLOTTE MASON FORUM and your unschooling or classical methods aren’t lifted up and praised all the time!
As has been stated so many times, if those methods work for you and your children, that is amazing! We are so glad you have found what works! Continue to use the tools in your toolbox that are working for your family. But while there are many of us on the forum who employ multiple tools and methods and mingle them all together, there are just as many of us who are Charlotte Mason purists. I wouldn’t start posting the praises of CM on a classical forum because that isn’t the point of that forum. The point of a classical forum would be to educate and encourage other classical homeschoolers in that method. That is the point of this CHARLOTTE MASON board: to educate and encourage each other in the Charlotte Mason method.
We can discuss the differences, strengths, and weaknesses of each method (and we should!), but please don’t be surprised or offended if the discussion naturally leans in favor of CM, please.
What has saddened me the most about this thread is that it veered far, far away from what the OP intended for it to be. As someone who doesn’t know much about CC, I could have learned more about that particular method, but instead I have been trying for 3 days to figure out how to post in a peace-making way among several of you who have been on this board for a long time and who have become valuable to me in my journey. We are adults and should be able to have adult conversations and share our opinions without anyone feeling criticized.
This forum has morphed somehow over the past several months. I don’t like that a CM purist can’t come to a CM board and discuss CM methods without offending someone on here who isn’t purely CM. I say again: THIS IS A CHARLOTTE MASON BOARD. If you don’t want to talk CM, lean toward CM, learn more about CM, or want help implementing CM in your homeschool, there are hundreds of other homeschooling boards that you could benefit from.
We want to talk about Charlotte Mason here. And sometimes that means discussing other methods openly and NOT agreeing with all of them because we have a CM bent.
I love you all, truly. And I value all of your wisdom and opinions.
Blessings,
Lindsey

July 28, 2014 at 1:58 am
Janell
Participant
I can’t wait to read Karen Glass’ new book Consider This when it’s available.
Charlotte Mason shared a lot of wisdom about the formation of habits, the importance of the natural world, living ideas from living books, and so much more. I especially have been pondering her teaching regarding “the science of relations.” She mentioned that children should make their own connections and that the knowledge was varied and in literary form.
Charlotte Mason in Volume 6, Chapter 10 of Towards a Philosophy of Education:
We, believing that the normal child has powers of mind which fit him to deal with all knowledge proper to him, give him a full and generous curriculum, taking care only that all knowledge offered to him is vital, that is, that facts are not presented without their informing ideas. Out of this conception comes our principle that:––
“Education is the Science of Relations’; that is, a child has natural relations with a vast number of things and thoughts: so we train him upon physical exercises, nature lore, handicrafts, science and art, and upon many living books, for we know that our business is not to teach him all about anything, but to help him to make valid as many as may be of––
“Those first-born affinities
That fit our new existence to existing things.”
In devising a syllabus for a normal child, of whatever social class, three points must be considered:––
(a) He requires much knowledge, for the mind needs sufficient food as much as does the body.
(b) The knowledge should be various, for sameness in mental diet does not create appetite (i.e., curiosity).
(c) Knowledge should be communicated in well-chosen language because his attention responds naturally to what is conveyed in literary form.
July 28, 2014 at 2:57 am
mrsmccardell
Participant
Christie, I appreciate all the excellent articles you share. Please continue to share them.
July 28, 2014 at 4:03 am
Phobo
Participant
Yes, just wanted to jump in and say that I do hope this doesn’t turn anyone off of sharing more articles like the originally posted, as I find them so useful in my homeschooling journey (which is just at the beginning, so I love having a place like this forum to glean all of this great information).

Rachel
July 28, 2014 at 12:34 pm
MissusLeata
Participant
So, since this is a CM website, it’s ok to post articles that slander other approaches to education by stating things that aren’t true and any CM mom who recognizes the false is to be quiet or be ostracized? That’s good to know.
July 28, 2014 at 12:39 pm
RobinP
Participant
I think this portion is a key point in light of this discussion:
“In a Classical school, these might be addressed via memory work, but certainly the hands-on, “ideas coming to life” aspect would be missed. Unless an excellent teacher were, of course, able to bring the subjects to life.”
I remember a history professor I had for one semester in college. Oh I loved that class! We had a textbook, of course, and were tested on that material, but the class itself was a joy. He LOVED history and absolute made it vividly real to us. We were on the edge of our seats as he related story after story and made it come alive. In all my history classes (most all classes, really) his was the ONLY one that was living. The foundational underpinnings of the system he was in were the same but HE was different. This can happen in any educational paradigm. It can also happen the opposite. I’m sure there are Charlotte Mason moms and teachers who do not seek to present living ideas to their students. Maybe they’re just going through the motions or they just don’t know how. But that doesn’t change the FOUNDATION upon what those paradigms are built on. We are seeking to better learn the foundations. In my case at the moment I am focusing on the Holy Spirit as the teacher of my children…and the teacher of ME. But we’re all in different places and can learn from one another. We can encourage each other and build one another up in many areas of family life, food choices
, etc., but, in THiS context…a Charlotte Mason education.
Blessings on you all.
July 28, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Bookworm
Participant
The different philosophy completely determines how we view THE SAME ACTIVITY. The main bone of contention here seems to be that some of us think lots of memory work is out of context, and some of the other side think this is somehow slandering or lying???? But this is just a differing philosophical viewpoint. Just like Daniel Mitchell and Paul Krugman can look at the same objective thing (tax increase, for example) and see TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS, so I look at, say, memorizing the Russian tsars and to me, from my viewpoint, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE “CONTEXT” THAT WOULD MAKE THIS A WORTHWHILE ACTIVITY. Perhaps, maybe, if my child were heir to the throne????? I just have a different view of education, a different view of a child, than LB or SWB. Who is wrong and who is right doesn’t really matter a lot, but my holding a different viewpoint is not slander, is not lying. You are perfectly free to disagree with me. No problems there. But it is kind of tough to be attacked for slandering and lying for a philosophical difference. I am used to this in politics and economics, but I was sort of thinking discussing CM philosophy and why I prefer it to classical should be fair enough game on a CM forum. I do not believe that children are “poll-parrots”. My saying this does not mean I am slandering Dorothy Sayers. I do not think memory work should be the foundation for the education of young children. I believe education is the science of relations, not the reciting of memory work. This is my viewpoint, not slander. I DO believe the CM way is a better fit for children, and I KNOW it is a better fit for mine. I vastly prefer it to classical, which I have in fact tried. This does not mean I think you are terrible and hate children. It just means I have a philosphical preference. We can discuss the relative value of educational approaches and discuss an article that is closer to the CM viewpoint than the classical without accusing each other of slander, I think. If we can’t, then I’m clearly in the wrong place too.