CHARLOTTE MASON AND CLASSICAL EDUCATION
By
Pam Geyer
There is a lot of talk in the home schooling
community these days about classical education. In particular, the book The
Well-Trained Mind by Jessie Wise and Susan Wise Bauer is very popular. And much of what classical educators
advocate coincides with my personal beliefs on what constitutes a quality
education. Having worked through the
issue of structured academics versus unschooling in the early days of our home
schooling adventure, I particularly appreciated this quote from The Well-Trained Mind:
“Classical education is diametrically opposed to
‘unschooling,’ which is immensely popular among many home schoolers. ‘Unschooling’ is child-centered. It assumes that the child will learn all
that she needs to know by following her natural impulses, and that any learning
that is ‘imposed’ on the child by an authority figure will prove unproductive.
“Classical education is knowledge-focused, not
child-focused. It attempts to teach
knowledge in a way that awakens the child’s interest, but the child’s interest
is not the sole determining factor in whether or not a subject should be
followed. How does a child know whether
something will interest and excite her unless she works at unfamiliar (and
perhaps intimidating) material?
“Unschoolers also tend to denigrate ‘book’ learning
in favor of ‘real’ learning. Many
unschoolers claim that the day-to-day realities of family life provide plenty
of opportunities for learning. For
these unschoolers, taking care of the house, grocery shopping, cooking, car
repair, working in the family business, writing thank-you notes, and so on
provide enough opportunity for children to learn real-life sills without ‘doing
school’ in a formal way.
“While this may be true, a child’s education
shouldn’t be limited to ‘real-life skills.’
Classically educated children should be able to cook, write thank-you
notes, and tie their shoes. They also
know where their country came from, how to construct a logical argument, and
what puella means.” (pp. 584-5)
Even Michael Farris of the Home School Legal
Defense Association is convinced of the value of a classical education. In his book The Future of Home Schooling, he says:
“There is little question that home schooled
children are doing very well indeed compared to their public school
counterparts. But, as parents, we
should not be satisfied with doing better than a system that, on average, has
totally failed to deliver quality academics in a safe atmosphere. We want our children to achieve both
academically and morally at the highest levels rather than merely being better
than the competition. It is this
yearning in the hearts of successful parents that is going to lead many home
schoolers in the next five to ten years to include the main components of
classical education into their children’s education.” (p. 7)
What I have come to understand is that a Charlotte
Mason education is consistent in many points with a classical education. Like classical educators, Charlotte Mason
felt that the purpose of education was to develop virtue or character in the
student, and that this is done in part through exposure to the very finest
literature and books. Furthermore, in
both a Charlotte Mason education and a classical education, teaching is done in
consideration of the child’s developmental level and the stages of
learning. In addition, both approaches
emphasize growth in knowledge rather than merely “covering” subjects. In both, the student is expected to approach
his studies purposefully, and the standard is excellence.
However, a Charlotte Mason education differs from
classical education in other ways. In
the first place, classical education emphasizes rote memory work in all
subjects, whereas Charlotte Mason felt that there was little point to rote
memorization. As we all know, lists of
names and dates are quickly forgotten; in Charlotte Mason’s experience, only
quality literature, read with focus and then narrated (or told back) in the
child’s own words, would be remembered.
She even called narration “the act of knowing.” She did encourage some memorization—passages
of Scripture, uplifting poetry, etc.—and of course sometimes it is useful to
have certain facts immediately at our disposal--the books of the Bible and
multiplication facts come to mind, for example. But as a rule, Charlotte Mason taught that narration was more
useful than memorization in the development of understanding and knowledge.
Second, classical education and stresses academics
even for the very youngest students—reading, extensive writing, and formal
grammar study from first grade on. But
Charlotte Mason felt that childhood was too precious to spend engaged in long
hours of tedious study. To be sure, she
felt that the morning hours should be devoted to formal learning. However, this came in the form of short
lessons—no more than fifteen minutes per subject for the very young—and
preferably alternating a “painstaking” subject (like a math exercise) with a
“thinking” subject (like reading a chapter from a history book). But she firmly believed that the afternoons
should be kept free for nature study, art and music, handicrafts, and
delight-directed study. She further
believed that children should be allowed to spend much time outdoors, every day
in all kinds of weather, and that formal composition and formal grammar study
should be delayed until the age of 9 or 10.
Of course, her technique of narration, along with a couple of other
simple language arts techniques, provides experience with and preparation for
composition and grammar study later on.
Third, many classical educators feel that it is
necessary to move the schooling outside of the home to “schools of like minds,”
especially during the high school years, as they do not believe that parents
not qualified to instruct at the higher levels. But Charlotte Mason fully advocated parental authority and
responsibility, and believed that self-education—reading the great works
written by the great thinkers of the past--would provide a quality education,
second to none.
Finally, classical education emphasizes the
teaching of formal logic over the teaching of God’s word. Charlotte Mason, of course, stressed the
importance of reading Scripture and allowing it to be the standard by which to
measure fallacy and truth. It is
important to note that the ancients always fell short of attaining their
ideals; in their despair, some even committed suicide. Without Christ, there is no hope! I do believe that there is a place for the
study of formal logic. But it is also
possible to construct a very logical argument which leads to a wrong
conclusion, especially where issues of morality are concerned. This is the very premise for formal debate!
By using the Bible as the final authority in determining truth, such error is avoided.
In my opinion, the classical method as interpreted
in The Well-Trained Mind and
elsewhere (Veritas Academy, Logos School, etc.) is overly demanding and
strenuous. If my goal were to focus
wholly on academics, they might provide a means to that end. However, that is not all I am trying to
accomplish.
It is clear to me that Charlotte Mason was, in
fact, a classical educator. But her
primary aims were to instill in children good habits and a love of
learning. I believe that we have a duty
to educate our children in knowledge, but that we also have a commandment from
God to train them in righteousness. The
Charlotte Mason method keeps that focus in mind. That is what I appreciate most about Charlotte Mason and her
approach to education!
Copyright 2000 by Pam Geyer
All Rights Reserved