Sorry Ju, I waited and waited and waited but then I had to post. I STILL want to hear what YOU have to say though, so no copping out on me. Congrats to Brooklyn though--that's awesome!!
I had numerous thoughts as I read through the Refined Home article, but when I got to the end all I could think was, "Wow! How timely, how needed, how important, and how inspirational." I also thought that a whole lot of people were going to be offended--but that seems to be happening with increased frequency when the brethren lay it on the line. Or maybe my hopeless naivete is rearing its ugly head again and people have always been offended when the brethren laid things on the line.
First, I have to agree with Elder Maxwell as quoted in the talk, "We . . . live in a world that is too prone to the tasteless" (57). Amen and amen. My students used to try and convince me that the Simpsons was humorous because I had a "no talking about the Simpsons in my classroom" rule. They didn't manage it. Mary Tyler Moore was asked once why she had stopped acting and she replied that she would love to be involved but had chosen not to because the shows were no longer tasteful and that "television no longer knows how to be funny." Turning off the television in our home (we don't have access to any sort of television, although we watch movies) was a no-brainer for us. Although some shows like Frazier had elements of true humor (word play and irony), most current shows rely on non-humor (bodily functions, crude situational humor, slapstick violence) to get ratings. If these shows are getting ratings as can only be assumed by their continued existence, then Elder Maxwell's stinging rebuke about tastelessness is proved without additional evidence.
Of course, if we examined many popular music styles and hit songs, the tasteless argument would be underscored and solidified. It was with some regret that I stopped listening to current country music, but the genre that had always emphasized lyrics and story-telling had become reliant on blasting instruments and loud-volume singing--not to mention that frivolous increase in swearing and songs like "I'm just talking about tonight" and pimp songs like "whose your daddy?" (Yes, I think Toby Keith killed country music.) There are still some great songs, but far more that hinder the Spirit and make me feel attacked. (Kami is going to mock me here because I've always been an old lady about loud music--I just have no tolerance.)
In short--tastelessness abounds. Elder Callister offered some valuable remedies and counter-actions we can take to prevent our own homes from harboring and fostering tastelessness. I thought it especially appropriate that he starts off by discussing how we speak. And yes, I'm opening myself up to mocking again because I don't care how accepted it has become, the words "suck" and "crap" still make me shudder. I love that in my home, the worst word my children say is "stinkin'" and I've already tried to repent and stop saying it. Truly, what the parents say the children imitate and the cleaner we keep our language the more pleasant our home environment.
Granted, Elder Callister was talking about more than just clean language, he was also talking about expressing ourselves clearly and eloquently. Language has always affected me deeply and I often thrill when I read words put together beautifully. For that reason I love collecting quotes that express great ideas in beautiful language. Truly, a person's language greatly reflects their level of refinement.
Literature (you all know I would love this part) was my favorite section in his talk because this is something that has mattered to me all my life. I buy books so my children will be surrounded by the highest quality of reading material. I won't for a second lay claim to knowing what entails a "classic" other than my own definition, but we all know which books have affected us in positive ways. I know libraries are around and that's great, but I feel passionate about having many (hundreds) of quality books in the home so when a child has a hankering for a book and the library isn't an option, that child has access to the best books. Even the beauty of the book sometimes has an effect. For Mother's Day, Timothy started my collection of beautiful hard-back Austen novels (the cheap Barnes and Noble versions) by getting four of them. There is something about picking up a beautiful copy of an Austen novel that does something for my soul. The same with the exquisite hard-back copy of Leaves of Grass Timothy gave me early in our marriage. Beautiful books promote a bit of reverence in handling them.
Music is one area where I haven't always had very refined tastes. I thought most classical music was boring and only old country worth listening to. I have greatly revised my opinion in the past two years. Two years ago the cd player in my van broke. Rather than singing children's songs together, we listened to mom's (my) country station. That lasted for a day before I got tired of flipping the channel due to inappropriate language. The Imagination Station that played children's music when I was little and lived in Provo no longer existed. Irritated, and a little bitter, I turned to a classical station. The kids and I have fallen in love with classical. We've practiced identifying instruments (and improved greatly--at first all we could pick out were violins and trumpets . . . although we could easily be mixing up violins with violas), Miriam can pick out a lot of the Nutcracker music, we seat dance, we lead the music. Most important, and surprising, is that my children make up stories to match the music. We identify mad music versus happy versus sad. One day we were driving and all the music played that day had an animal theme so we happily guessed which animal was being represented by the music. Slowly, over the last two years, I've lost my ability to listen to any other kind of music for an extended period of time (except Willie). It's just too . . . frenetic, or something. It makes me feel agitated. My children and I have exprienced tremendous benefits from listening to classical music.
I had Timothy read the article with me tonight and we talked about sloppiness. He said the article made him want to replace our front door even more (it's falling apart and cracking and just looks awful). President Kimball used to talk frequently about beautifying our homes. It really does make a difference in how we feel when we maintain ourselves and our property. Timothy and I also talked about how long it takes to really make your home nice--time and money are not always immediately available. We talked about setting a good example for our children in our own deportment--making sure we cultivate refinement in our own home so it becomes second nature to our children.
Most interesting was our discussion of refined conversation--how we can teach our children to converse about a variety of topics in an intelligent and interesting manner. In Austen's day, "conversation" was one of the critical skills a young lady developed in order to be accomplished. We've lost that art. I'm not sure if we're afraid of offending or we're just boring that so many conversations tend to end up at movies. Is that really all we can talk about? We came up with a few ideas for ways we want to increase the refinement in our own home (Timothy thought the article was great, by the by).
To sum up, amen Elder Callister and thank you for the fabulous article.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Temple Fireside
So my old bishop is a bit of a temple scholar...published and what not. Anyway, he is having a series of firesides about temples and since Andrea and I were just discussing our lack of understanding of temples, I decided to post the notes I took here. As all the information he gives is from books anyway, I figure that's okay. Oh and this is completely unorganized and disconnected. Sorry, that is how my brain works.
First, Bishop Thomas is a psychiatrist who works running a research center on family studies (something along that line) and teaches occasionally at Northwestern a grad level brain physiology class. Basically these are his ideas or what he's studied, and you can take them or leave them as you will.
So he began be stating that when he went through the temple, he had no foreknowledge of anything and he was more than a little surprised. Hence his extensive search for information since then and his desire to help people understand and be prepared for the temple.
"We should give more attention to preparing our young people and some older people, for the work they are to do in the temple..It is not quite fair to let the young girl or young man enter the temple unprepared, unwarned, if you choose, with no explanation of the glorious possibilities of the first fine day in the temple." --John A. Widtsoe
He also quoted David O. McKay, who described his first temple attendance as focusing solely on the mechanisms and not the ritual or symbolism, hence learning nothing. (paraphrased from me).
Also, since most of our worship is didactic and we don't us icons or a lot a symbolism in our services (except the sacrament) we're not really used to symbolism in our religious culture so the temple comes as a bit of a shock. So in light of that, here's a list of symbolism that is common in our LDS culture:
"We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand. " John A Widtsoe
(Bishop Thomas addressed the whole topic rather academically by the way). He stated that temples EVERYWHERE in the world and every culture have the common theme of having the purpose to ascend to God. And usually set up in a three part structure: underworld (ie we do baptisms for the dead underground symbolic of this), earth or the preparatory part, and Heaven, which is to be in the presence of God.
Etymology of "Temple:" Latin (Templum):
The Garden of Eden--Mountains---tabernacle--- Temple (Soloman)---Temple(2nd)---Kirtland--Nauvoo---modern temples
He had a framed papyrus of Egyptian hieroglyphics of a dead Pharaoh passing through different sentinels making signs with his hands and holding cups of knowledge and receiving a new name, and finally joining the God Osiris (I think that was the one, I didn't write it down) in heaven and becoming a god himself. Hmmm.....
And for a few random tidbits:
He showed the first Angel Moroni weathervane that was a top the Nauvoo temple and pointed out several things. He's actually flying (as in flying in the midst of heaven) holding the BOM, wearing priestly robes, and having the symbols of a compass, and cross, and crown on it. Who knew? Not me.....
Stakes are actually symbolic of the stakes holding up the tabernacle (hence the temple) hence the stakes of the church are holding up the temple as there main priority.
Umm, and one funny story, he said Hugh Nibley (who I adore) wrote letters upon letters trying to get the presidency of the church to recognize their "mistake" in not having the entrance of the Provo temple face east. The whole thing of all the temples facing east is only a Mormon myth, and obviously, was not needed, since the Nauvoo temple faced west. (Hugh Nibley missed that, shame on him!)
Anyway, I hope that was enlightening, or at least, interesting. Next month I'll give you my notes from the next one. Oh, he also gave everyone a list of books related to temples and I can post that if anyone is interested. Just be forewarned that it's 5 pages long.
First, Bishop Thomas is a psychiatrist who works running a research center on family studies (something along that line) and teaches occasionally at Northwestern a grad level brain physiology class. Basically these are his ideas or what he's studied, and you can take them or leave them as you will.
So he began be stating that when he went through the temple, he had no foreknowledge of anything and he was more than a little surprised. Hence his extensive search for information since then and his desire to help people understand and be prepared for the temple.
"We should give more attention to preparing our young people and some older people, for the work they are to do in the temple..It is not quite fair to let the young girl or young man enter the temple unprepared, unwarned, if you choose, with no explanation of the glorious possibilities of the first fine day in the temple." --John A. Widtsoe
He also quoted David O. McKay, who described his first temple attendance as focusing solely on the mechanisms and not the ritual or symbolism, hence learning nothing. (paraphrased from me).
Also, since most of our worship is didactic and we don't us icons or a lot a symbolism in our services (except the sacrament) we're not really used to symbolism in our religious culture so the temple comes as a bit of a shock. So in light of that, here's a list of symbolism that is common in our LDS culture:
- the sacrament
- baptism
- laying on of hands
- olive oil
- beehive
- sun, moon, stars
- 6 temple spires
- Angel Moroni
- LDS
- cloud stones/Ursa Major
- uplifted hand
- dark suit, white shirt -(I'll have to ask about this one)
- all-seeing eye
- 12 oxen
- temple
- temple recommend
- New Jerusalem
- White
- keystone
- cornerstone
- CTR
- stake
- ward
- Sacred Grove
"We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand. " John A Widtsoe
(Bishop Thomas addressed the whole topic rather academically by the way). He stated that temples EVERYWHERE in the world and every culture have the common theme of having the purpose to ascend to God. And usually set up in a three part structure: underworld (ie we do baptisms for the dead underground symbolic of this), earth or the preparatory part, and Heaven, which is to be in the presence of God.
Etymology of "Temple:" Latin (Templum):
- a space that has been marked (cut) out for observing heaven
- sacred space partitioned off from profane space
- navel of the earth (we're there to receive nourishment)
- designated space for communing with God
- Place where heaven and earth meet
- the primal hillock (Sumarian)--(this would be similar to Mt. Sinai idea)
- earthly representation of a heavenly pattern
The Garden of Eden--Mountains---tabernacle--- Temple (Soloman)---Temple(2nd)---Kirtland--Nauvoo---modern temples
He had a framed papyrus of Egyptian hieroglyphics of a dead Pharaoh passing through different sentinels making signs with his hands and holding cups of knowledge and receiving a new name, and finally joining the God Osiris (I think that was the one, I didn't write it down) in heaven and becoming a god himself. Hmmm.....
And for a few random tidbits:
He showed the first Angel Moroni weathervane that was a top the Nauvoo temple and pointed out several things. He's actually flying (as in flying in the midst of heaven) holding the BOM, wearing priestly robes, and having the symbols of a compass, and cross, and crown on it. Who knew? Not me.....
Stakes are actually symbolic of the stakes holding up the tabernacle (hence the temple) hence the stakes of the church are holding up the temple as there main priority.
Umm, and one funny story, he said Hugh Nibley (who I adore) wrote letters upon letters trying to get the presidency of the church to recognize their "mistake" in not having the entrance of the Provo temple face east. The whole thing of all the temples facing east is only a Mormon myth, and obviously, was not needed, since the Nauvoo temple faced west. (Hugh Nibley missed that, shame on him!)
Anyway, I hope that was enlightening, or at least, interesting. Next month I'll give you my notes from the next one. Oh, he also gave everyone a list of books related to temples and I can post that if anyone is interested. Just be forewarned that it's 5 pages long.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
BYU devotional
I didn't know it came from a devotional. Thanks for the heads up and the link--I'll be reading it too. No fair waiting for my commentary--I am curious what you all think! My commentary will be coming though, never fear. :)
Friday, May 29, 2009
Potty Training is FAR more important than Hamlet, I will agree to that . . . and far more grueling as well! :-) Good luck with that! :-)
Andrea - - I am hesitant to write anything about the Ensign article until I hear your viewpoints first. :-) Usually I don't read the new Ensign until the exact month (i.e. wasn't planning on touching this issue until Monday . . . I'm quirky like that!) . . . plus, still engrossed in the Conference issue. Anyhoo . . . due to your encouragement I read the Refined Home article. Wow! I actually have just printed off the full version, the original BYU devotional. So, I will be reading that, and then I will respond. :-)
JULIA
Andrea - - I am hesitant to write anything about the Ensign article until I hear your viewpoints first. :-) Usually I don't read the new Ensign until the exact month (i.e. wasn't planning on touching this issue until Monday . . . I'm quirky like that!) . . . plus, still engrossed in the Conference issue. Anyhoo . . . due to your encouragement I read the Refined Home article. Wow! I actually have just printed off the full version, the original BYU devotional. So, I will be reading that, and then I will respond. :-)
JULIA
Ummm....
I tried to get A Passion for the Impossible at the library today. Yeah, they said it wasn't in their system. Not even interlibrary loan. I don't know what's up with that, but I won't be reading it. Also I made it through two chapters of Dividing Lines. Then it was due back through interlibrary loan. So umm... that may be as far as I get too. I'm still working on Hamlet. I DID read a book on potty training though. First things first, what can I say?
Ensign
I know this isn't an Ensign blog--but seriously the June Ensign is PACKED with articles worth discussing. I've read most of it now (don't think I'm all that great--I usually read all of it in two days while promising to go back and really ponder the best articles, which I never do).
Have you read the talk about a Refined Home yet?? Read it, tell me what you think, I am oh, so curious.
Have you read the talk about a Refined Home yet?? Read it, tell me what you think, I am oh, so curious.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Reading List
List looks great!
I LOVE Elizabeth Gaskill.
Anxious to read House of Sixty Fathers
Just finished Dr. Laura's book . . . pretty good, not my favorite of hers, but we'll have lots to say I'm sure. :-)
I have to tell you our library doesn't have the Churchill book. And if they don't order it for me, I'm not going to pay $3.00 for interloan library (I don't even buy books to keep at that price most of the time). So, I'm really sorry if I don't read it. I want to . . . I just might have to buy it for keeps if I'm going to pay anything at all. :-) I paid $3.00 for the Dividing Lines book and never even touched it. SO . . .
Also, right now I'm currently reading The Hero and the Crown for the first time and loving it! :-)
JULIA
I LOVE Elizabeth Gaskill.
Anxious to read House of Sixty Fathers
Just finished Dr. Laura's book . . . pretty good, not my favorite of hers, but we'll have lots to say I'm sure. :-)
I have to tell you our library doesn't have the Churchill book. And if they don't order it for me, I'm not going to pay $3.00 for interloan library (I don't even buy books to keep at that price most of the time). So, I'm really sorry if I don't read it. I want to . . . I just might have to buy it for keeps if I'm going to pay anything at all. :-) I paid $3.00 for the Dividing Lines book and never even touched it. SO . . .
Also, right now I'm currently reading The Hero and the Crown for the first time and loving it! :-)
JULIA
Reading List for the Next Six Months
As you might have realized, next month we are reading WINSTON!! YAHOO!! Everyone must participate (even you Kami, I don't care how far behind you are). After that we'll be starting on our next six months list:
July: The House of Sixty Fathers
August: The Making of Modern Columbia
September: I am the Clay (Potok)
October: In Praise of Stay-At-Home Moms (Dr. Laura)
November: The Post-American World
December: Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell
I'm sure Kami will update our list for us.
Happy reading!
July: The House of Sixty Fathers
August: The Making of Modern Columbia
September: I am the Clay (Potok)
October: In Praise of Stay-At-Home Moms (Dr. Laura)
November: The Post-American World
December: Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell
I'm sure Kami will update our list for us.
Happy reading!
Lilias Trotter
I'm giving this book mixed reviews. First, the author's writing style was highly annoying. The only thing to recommend the author is that her name is Miriam. Aside from that--nothing. I take it all back--I will give her kudos for including a longer segment of Lilias's writing at the end of the book.
The problems I had with Rockness were more a communication issue than anything else. I expected an academic biography, complete with superfluous endnoting and all opinions backed up by said endnotes. Instead, the book read in part like an amateur biography, in part like a thriller (what will happen next), and in part like a high school editorial about the homecoming queen--replete with annoying !! usage. Where was this woman's editor? Exclamation points don't belong in serious writing.
A few examples of poor writing include the aggravating way Rockness switched between two spellings of Michel/Michael Olives. Another example is on page 165: "For Lilias, at last, after the darkest and longest siege, faith would begin to be rewarded with sight. Heavenly suprises were just around the bend." That was only two sentances but there was a whole paragraph just like it. And similar paragraphs beginning and ending each chapter and sometimes each segment. You don't need to foreshadow in a biography. You definitely don't need to do so repeatedly. As a biographer you don't need to "sell" your subject. Either the person was worthy of a biography or not. The glowing and opinionated descriptions of Lilias's parents were overkill.
The most irritating habit of Rockness was her disparaging of the native Algerians. For example pg. 173 where Rockness describes Lilias meeting with some native desert dwellers: "Their joy in making contact with the child-like people . . .." People who can eke out an existence in the Sahara deserve a better description than "child-like." The poor writing and awful !! were almost enough to make me quit reading.
However, I continued reading to the end because of the quotes from Lilias herself. She was a phenomenal woman with incredible faith and an inspiring way of taking simple things and finding gospel lessons in them. Had I known more about her, I would have skipped the biography and tried to get one of her books instead. I found I could not read the book quickly because I had to slow down and really ponder Lilias's words. Right now, when I have such high-falutin' goals for my family it is no wonder that much of what Lilias wrote about resonated with me on a motherhood level. The rest of this post is about those little insights of Lilias.
Pg 139: "You can never tell to what untold glories any little humble path may lead, if you follow far enough." All of us are on humble roads. None of us are rich/famous/important in the worldly sense. And yet, our humble roads of wifehood, motherhood, sisterhood, sainthood (in the sense of being Latter-Day Saints), is the surest way to glory if we try our hardest and stay on the path to its end.
Pg 144: "Oh so endlessly beautiful the days are & they go so quickly. God has many things to say and one can sit by the hour on the heather with one's Bible and listen." Lilias always talked about hearing the voice of God in the scriptures. She had a very real belief that when she was reading the scriptures God was talking to her, and each new insight was from Him. Her understanding of the scriptures by the end of her life was incredible.
Pg 152: "Despising not the day of small things." This is one of her most important lessons. Much of her 40 years in Algeria was spent in small things that created no discernible progress. However, she still felt great joy in being able to serve God. I need to cultivate that attitude in myself towards motherhood. Every day is a day of small things, but that doesn't mean I am excused for ill temper, impatience, or exhaustion. In small things are great things brought to pass. The humble road is often the one that leads to glory. Besides that, I've already taken on the responsibility of small children--I might as well learn to love the path that I am on and the small things that could make my life joyful if I fully embraced them.
Pg 152: "Obedience is the atmosphere of God's revealing."
Pg 154: "When God delays in fulfilling our little thoughts, it is to have Himself room to work out His great ones."
Pg 157: "It is never long before God begins to speak when one gets away in His unspoilt world." I have never been much of a nature lover, but I am impressed by Lilias's ability to learn such incredibly important and simple lessons about God from her study and love of the natural world.
Pg 166: "A bee comforted me very much this morning concerning the desultoriness that troubles me in our work. He was hovering among some blackberry sprays, just touching the flowers here and there in a very tentative way, yet all unconsciously, life-life-life was left behind at every touch, as the miracle-working pollengrains were transferred to the place where they could set the unseen spring working." I think mothers are like bees. We hover and teach and touch our children here and there, but the full effect of our ministry to them isn't known for years and years.
Pg 167: ". . . every room has been hallowed by prayer and praise and love . . .." Lilias was referring to a new home that the mission had purchased, but I think it is a lovely concept for our own homes. At our house we talk a lot about having a "temple house." Prayer and praise and love would not be a poor definition of that ideal.
Pg 173: "Though it was something she neither sought nor resisted, the mantle of leadership inevitably fell upon Lilias's shoulders, she having both the vision for the ministry and the ability to inspire and mobilize others in the work" (Rockness). Isn't that what mothers have to do to be effective? Inspire and mobilize.
Pg 178: "Is the aim of our ministry to them measured by the pattern laid down in St. Paul's Epistles--in caring; in sacrifice; in intercession?" Again, motherhood came immediately to mind.
Pg 180: Lilias described the martens (birds) that lived all around her. They have no spring in their legs so they can't take flight unless they can fall a ways. "So we need not wonder if we are not allowed to stay long in level sheltered places--our faith wings are like the martens' and mostly need the gulf of some emergency to give them their start on a new flight. We will not fear when we feel empty air under them."
Pg 182: "Inwardly it is all aglow, as I never knew a place to be in all my life--on fire with a spirit of sacrifice that does not even know itself to be sacrifice, it is so the natural expression of love." If only I could reach that point in serving/sacrificing for my children.
Pg 202: "And yet let us evermore write over all our miseries, big, and for the most part very little, these transforming words 'With Jesus.' And then the very breath of Heaven will breathe upon our whole being and we shall be glad." When we forget that motherhood is a partnering with the Savior to bring souls to Him, it becomes so overwhelming. I don't think we call on the Savior often enough or fervently enough to gain the heavenly help He is willing and able to give us. I think we try to do too much on our own.
Pg 217: ". . . and each generation must find out its own best ways of doing things unhampered by trying to keep to the conditions of the generation that went before." Often our parents (and friends) are helpful in the process of raising our children. Other times . . . not so much.
Pg 246: ". . . fifty years or more in the past, it was a joy to think that God needed me: Now it is a far deeper joy to feel & see that He does not need me--that He has it all in hand!" I thought about this concept for quite some time as I have always been so buoyed up by the knowledge that I am a partner with Christ is building His kingdom. I think Lilias is right though--it is much better to know that everything is perfectly under Heavenly Father's control. However, that doesn't diminish the joy I feel in knowing that I can help and that I can become an effective instrument in His hands. Our will, after all, is free to give or withhold as we choose.
Most important to me was Lilias's favorite concept--that of the impossible never being truly impossible with God. One of her favorite quotes was stated by a man named William Booth: "God loves with a great love the man whose heart is bursting with a passion for the impossible." This resonated with me because the goals that I have for my family sometimes seem impossible--due to my own laziness and/or the wickedness of the world.
Lilias's words are fabulous reminders that it really doesn't matter if something is impossible: "But oh! He [Satan] overreaches himself when he gets to the word [impossible]. He means it to sound like a knell, and instead of that it breaks into a ringing chime of hope: for The things that are impossible with men are possible with God. Yes: face it out to the end: cast away every shadow of hope on the human side as a positive hindrance to the Divine; heap the difficulties together recklessly, and pile on as many more as you can find: you cannot get beyond that blessed climax of impossibility. Let faith swing out on Him. He is the God of the impossible."
Since my goals have already reached the impossible it doesn't really matter what others I add to them. You either walk and talk with God and reach impossible goals, or you try it on your own and you fail. I'd rather join with Lilias and trust the God of the impossible.
In all, this book wasn't the best read around. However, that was in no way due to the subject matter. I'm glad I found Lilias Trotter and learned about her. She was an amazing woman. I'll remember "the unquenchable, mystical, fighting love of Miss Trotter of North Africa" (Basil Matthews, pg 246).
The problems I had with Rockness were more a communication issue than anything else. I expected an academic biography, complete with superfluous endnoting and all opinions backed up by said endnotes. Instead, the book read in part like an amateur biography, in part like a thriller (what will happen next), and in part like a high school editorial about the homecoming queen--replete with annoying !! usage. Where was this woman's editor? Exclamation points don't belong in serious writing.
A few examples of poor writing include the aggravating way Rockness switched between two spellings of Michel/Michael Olives. Another example is on page 165: "For Lilias, at last, after the darkest and longest siege, faith would begin to be rewarded with sight. Heavenly suprises were just around the bend." That was only two sentances but there was a whole paragraph just like it. And similar paragraphs beginning and ending each chapter and sometimes each segment. You don't need to foreshadow in a biography. You definitely don't need to do so repeatedly. As a biographer you don't need to "sell" your subject. Either the person was worthy of a biography or not. The glowing and opinionated descriptions of Lilias's parents were overkill.
The most irritating habit of Rockness was her disparaging of the native Algerians. For example pg. 173 where Rockness describes Lilias meeting with some native desert dwellers: "Their joy in making contact with the child-like people . . .." People who can eke out an existence in the Sahara deserve a better description than "child-like." The poor writing and awful !! were almost enough to make me quit reading.
However, I continued reading to the end because of the quotes from Lilias herself. She was a phenomenal woman with incredible faith and an inspiring way of taking simple things and finding gospel lessons in them. Had I known more about her, I would have skipped the biography and tried to get one of her books instead. I found I could not read the book quickly because I had to slow down and really ponder Lilias's words. Right now, when I have such high-falutin' goals for my family it is no wonder that much of what Lilias wrote about resonated with me on a motherhood level. The rest of this post is about those little insights of Lilias.
Pg 139: "You can never tell to what untold glories any little humble path may lead, if you follow far enough." All of us are on humble roads. None of us are rich/famous/important in the worldly sense. And yet, our humble roads of wifehood, motherhood, sisterhood, sainthood (in the sense of being Latter-Day Saints), is the surest way to glory if we try our hardest and stay on the path to its end.
Pg 144: "Oh so endlessly beautiful the days are & they go so quickly. God has many things to say and one can sit by the hour on the heather with one's Bible and listen." Lilias always talked about hearing the voice of God in the scriptures. She had a very real belief that when she was reading the scriptures God was talking to her, and each new insight was from Him. Her understanding of the scriptures by the end of her life was incredible.
Pg 152: "Despising not the day of small things." This is one of her most important lessons. Much of her 40 years in Algeria was spent in small things that created no discernible progress. However, she still felt great joy in being able to serve God. I need to cultivate that attitude in myself towards motherhood. Every day is a day of small things, but that doesn't mean I am excused for ill temper, impatience, or exhaustion. In small things are great things brought to pass. The humble road is often the one that leads to glory. Besides that, I've already taken on the responsibility of small children--I might as well learn to love the path that I am on and the small things that could make my life joyful if I fully embraced them.
Pg 152: "Obedience is the atmosphere of God's revealing."
Pg 154: "When God delays in fulfilling our little thoughts, it is to have Himself room to work out His great ones."
Pg 157: "It is never long before God begins to speak when one gets away in His unspoilt world." I have never been much of a nature lover, but I am impressed by Lilias's ability to learn such incredibly important and simple lessons about God from her study and love of the natural world.
Pg 166: "A bee comforted me very much this morning concerning the desultoriness that troubles me in our work. He was hovering among some blackberry sprays, just touching the flowers here and there in a very tentative way, yet all unconsciously, life-life-life was left behind at every touch, as the miracle-working pollengrains were transferred to the place where they could set the unseen spring working." I think mothers are like bees. We hover and teach and touch our children here and there, but the full effect of our ministry to them isn't known for years and years.
Pg 167: ". . . every room has been hallowed by prayer and praise and love . . .." Lilias was referring to a new home that the mission had purchased, but I think it is a lovely concept for our own homes. At our house we talk a lot about having a "temple house." Prayer and praise and love would not be a poor definition of that ideal.
Pg 173: "Though it was something she neither sought nor resisted, the mantle of leadership inevitably fell upon Lilias's shoulders, she having both the vision for the ministry and the ability to inspire and mobilize others in the work" (Rockness). Isn't that what mothers have to do to be effective? Inspire and mobilize.
Pg 178: "Is the aim of our ministry to them measured by the pattern laid down in St. Paul's Epistles--in caring; in sacrifice; in intercession?" Again, motherhood came immediately to mind.
Pg 180: Lilias described the martens (birds) that lived all around her. They have no spring in their legs so they can't take flight unless they can fall a ways. "So we need not wonder if we are not allowed to stay long in level sheltered places--our faith wings are like the martens' and mostly need the gulf of some emergency to give them their start on a new flight. We will not fear when we feel empty air under them."
Pg 182: "Inwardly it is all aglow, as I never knew a place to be in all my life--on fire with a spirit of sacrifice that does not even know itself to be sacrifice, it is so the natural expression of love." If only I could reach that point in serving/sacrificing for my children.
Pg 202: "And yet let us evermore write over all our miseries, big, and for the most part very little, these transforming words 'With Jesus.' And then the very breath of Heaven will breathe upon our whole being and we shall be glad." When we forget that motherhood is a partnering with the Savior to bring souls to Him, it becomes so overwhelming. I don't think we call on the Savior often enough or fervently enough to gain the heavenly help He is willing and able to give us. I think we try to do too much on our own.
Pg 217: ". . . and each generation must find out its own best ways of doing things unhampered by trying to keep to the conditions of the generation that went before." Often our parents (and friends) are helpful in the process of raising our children. Other times . . . not so much.
Pg 246: ". . . fifty years or more in the past, it was a joy to think that God needed me: Now it is a far deeper joy to feel & see that He does not need me--that He has it all in hand!" I thought about this concept for quite some time as I have always been so buoyed up by the knowledge that I am a partner with Christ is building His kingdom. I think Lilias is right though--it is much better to know that everything is perfectly under Heavenly Father's control. However, that doesn't diminish the joy I feel in knowing that I can help and that I can become an effective instrument in His hands. Our will, after all, is free to give or withhold as we choose.
Most important to me was Lilias's favorite concept--that of the impossible never being truly impossible with God. One of her favorite quotes was stated by a man named William Booth: "God loves with a great love the man whose heart is bursting with a passion for the impossible." This resonated with me because the goals that I have for my family sometimes seem impossible--due to my own laziness and/or the wickedness of the world.
Lilias's words are fabulous reminders that it really doesn't matter if something is impossible: "But oh! He [Satan] overreaches himself when he gets to the word [impossible]. He means it to sound like a knell, and instead of that it breaks into a ringing chime of hope: for The things that are impossible with men are possible with God. Yes: face it out to the end: cast away every shadow of hope on the human side as a positive hindrance to the Divine; heap the difficulties together recklessly, and pile on as many more as you can find: you cannot get beyond that blessed climax of impossibility. Let faith swing out on Him. He is the God of the impossible."
Since my goals have already reached the impossible it doesn't really matter what others I add to them. You either walk and talk with God and reach impossible goals, or you try it on your own and you fail. I'd rather join with Lilias and trust the God of the impossible.
In all, this book wasn't the best read around. However, that was in no way due to the subject matter. I'm glad I found Lilias Trotter and learned about her. She was an amazing woman. I'll remember "the unquenchable, mystical, fighting love of Miss Trotter of North Africa" (Basil Matthews, pg 246).
Monday, May 25, 2009
TJED According to Julia
Well, Ans, I know you probably didn't expect a response to your last post regarding the Thomas Jefferson Education model of teaching . . . but I just can't help myself. I have been pondering your words (and my own thoughts on the subject) ever since reading them and in order to get these thoughts out of my head I just have to write (type). Some things I agreed with, some things I thought "hmmm, maybe" and others I just didn't jive with. So, here it goes . . . (Andrea's thoughts in blue)
I just want to write my thoughts as I reread TJEd so I don't forget. Besides, knowing I have an audience forces me to clarify my thinking in a way that jotting down notes doesn't. The more I look into TJEd the more I am disinclined to affiliate myself with it. Although, that doesn't mean I won't take what I like--especially from the Home Companion. In all honesty, I can't see myself aligning myself with any particular strain of homeschooling because I like to do things the way I like to do them. That seems to be the approach most homeschoolers take anyway--steal what they like from every style and make it their own. That's me. That's where I am.
I agree . . . I think there are many homeschoolers who take what they like and make it their own, which is why it's hard to find homeschooling families who match up with your ideals. I do believe there has been a major "TJEd Following" that I admit really bothers me. My main sources: TJEd, Tanglewood.com, Everday Math cirriculum, brownielocks.com (my calendar obsession), the Classics!
My review of TJEd revisited:Chpt 1: "Is the education our children are receiving on par with their potential?" Something I need to be constantly asking myself as I continue homeschooling. Not only on par with their potential but learning what I want them to learn.
This is a tough one for me. I think I second-guess myself in what I'm teaching vs. what they could be learning in public school.
Chpt 2 (Education today): Dad marked and I agree with, "Any effort to 'fix education' will fail for two reasons. First, education is so many things to so many people" (pg. 12). "Second . . . Education can't be fixed as long as we believe this basic myth. The myth is that it is possible for one human being to educate another." To clarify, I agree completely with the idea that education is unfixable due to a general disagreement over the purpose of education. I do not believe that one human cannot educate another. If that were the case there would be no need for parents, teachers, mentors, or anything like unto it. Ridiculous, really.
However, I think this touches on the problem of blaming the teacher. As long as people blame the teacher instead of identifying other problems with the system the system won't ever be "fixed." Not that it can be fixed.
I have to say I never had the intention to homeschool because I was disenchanted with public schooling. Since hsing, I have heard horror stories and do feel there is a problem with the system. "The myth is that it is possible for one human being to educate another." What does this even mean anyway? I'd have to read it in exact context I think (but my book is loaned out at the moment)
Chpt 3 (Three Systems of Schooling), or the chapter that BUGS ME: "What happens if you get ahead? A factory worker moves you back into place." (Dad marked that with a "what?") Again, ridiculous, as Kami pointed out in her review of TJEd.The biggest problem with the chapter is the section called "The Competitive Conveyor Belt": "But once you're in that percentile, once you make it and say, 'I'm in Harvard,' you are required to get on the conveyor belt for several yars until they stamp another diploma on your forehead. Yo usay, 'But I want to think; I want to be a leader.' The institutional response is that there is time for that later, after you have graduated; for now you need to focus on your conveyor belt studies." The conveyor belt studies that don't teach you to think like the Scientific Method, or the philosophy of logics, or history papers that require only primary sources as references? I'm offended by his assertion that you don't learn how to think at school. Any math class is a class that teaches thinking. Any science class is teaching you about how the world works--and that's thinking. When he bashes my education when I have a masters degree and tells me I need a degree from his non-accredited university that only serves the function of funneling hard earned dollars to him with no benefit to the student--I get a little aggrieved. Dad marked with a huh? Totally. pg. 26
Now this is where I will beg to differ just bit. Why? Because I lived this kind of life growing up (I think). Not to blame anyone around me but myself. I was just clueless. I did good in school. But while my friends were taking AP classes, I had no clue what they were (I think I was in the AP English class but had no clue I was in it!). I did what my teachers told me, took the tests, got the grades and moved on. I would argue that not in every math class are you taught to think at all! Maybe doing the same type of problem over and over is considered thinking, but I was just following the step by step guide in how to do it, not really thinking on my own. I do firmly believe that public school can be a conveyor belt education. I would even say up until my last year of college, when I "got into" the classes for my major, did I really learn to love learning, not just do the required steps to get the diploma. He is harsh regarding diplomas, however, and I am still one who believes strongly in getting those certificates, but I hope that I can teach my children better HOW to think and not WHAT to think.
That chpt also talks about socialization: pg 28: "The highest level of socialization, the ideal, means the ability to effectively work with people of all backgrounds, stations, and positions, of really caring about them and being able to build an dmaintain long term, nurturing relationships. The conveyor belt, by its very nature, discourages this." I have to agree with him there. However, public schools do teach you how to have a thick skin and that is an important life skill as well.
PS may teach you to have a thick skin, but is it really worth it? I mean, I could have done away with my whole 7th & 8th grade years and probably come out with thicker skin than I did because I was so attached to the opinions of others on my character. Again, to nobody's fault, I have always had that dependency, and being in friendship battles did not help, it hurt. But, I ask myself, am I sheltering my kids from those experiences? Were they more necessary than I give them credit for?
Pg. 32: "During this phase (core) attention should be given above all to the nurture of a happy, interactive, confident child through the lessons that occur naturally during work and play in the family setting." DeMille's emphasis on not pushing a child too fast has always appealed to me because I have long argued that elementary aged students are expected to do too much too soon in the US.
So when will do you require? Do you require at this age (other than chores)? (more on requiring later I think)
7 keys:classics, not textbooks: Although DeMille says this, he doesn't always follow it and that's because it is basically stupid. Both classics and textbooks have their place and are useful. I'm not going to understand Euclid before I have some basics down and one of the best places to get basics is through textbooks. Besides that, I don't really believe that reading Euclid is necessary for me to have a great education.
Dad marked under that section, "As students become familiar with and eventually conversant with the great ideas of humanity, they learn how to think, how to lead, and how to become great." pg. 40. This is what DeMille does well. He reiterates the importance of the classics, or a classical education. I always agree with him when he sticks to this topic because I cannot think of a better way to educate than through reading great books, discussing them, and writing about them. However, his "method" becomes more complex all the time and that bugs me.
I would agree with this as well. I do think that textbooks still do have their places. I do use a textbook for math . . . it just makes sense. However, DeMille did make me think outside the box in how we also use classics to inspire our children in all subjects. I like that. I like what your dad said as well!
Mentors, Not professors: again, bugged by the way he titles it. I had excellent professors that were mentors. By his very definition of mentor, anyone could fall into that category including profs. Especially profs as they have incredible skill sets and knowledge. Also, he tends to bug me with his classical education leadership model in that learning a trade doesn't make you less able to be a leader. Knowing how to fix something sharpens your brain's ability to solve problems (think) also. It isn't an "only" situation. Also, DeMille said that only the student can choose to be educated. If a student chooses to learn he can learn in a classroom of twenty as easily as by himself. The student will take the initiative and personalize himself if he wants a quality education so DeMille undermined his own arguments for homeschooling.
First of all, I do agree with the "only" statement. You notice in this book that there are lot of "onlys" "shoulds" "always" & "nevers." To me that comes across at tad too bit egotistical. However, I do have a differing opinion on this key as well. I can't say I've had mentors. Teachers, yes, some better than others, but I wouldn't call them mentors. Again, probably my own faulty way of thinking. I could never have a true discussion with an adult if my opinon slightly differed from theirs. They were the authority, not the mentor and guide open for discussion. I think there are some inspirational teachers out there, don't get me wrong, I have a few I loved. BUT I think there are so many students that it's hard to get that personal one-on-one mentoring that makes mentoring different from professors. I think that's the essence of what DeMille is trying to say.
My Mentors are authors such as Linda Eyre, Leo Buscaglia, and Rafe Esquith . . . people who have inspired me through their writings to look outside the box and get off the conveyor belt!
Inspire, Not Require: This idea was initially the hardest one for me to swallow, but I've since thought about it more and actually believe it to a certain extent. . . . .I am, at heart, a require girl. I required excellence from my students and they delivered. They would never have risen to the level they did if all I did was inspire. Humans are naturally lazy. Do we really think we can change the entire natural man make-up of our children by embarking on a study plan for ourselves??? If nothing else our children might get turned off from school because they never graduate. They always have to do it!! That's one message our studying to inspire will send. I was able to get my students to achieve greatness by making sure they understood that I never gave assignments I didn't believe they could do. It was my faith in their ability to achieve that inspired them--not my example of study."Inspiring, in contrast to ignoring and forcing, means finding out what the students need and then creatively encouraging them to engage it on their own--with excitement and interest." pg. 43. I can agree with DeMille's explanation there, but that isn't what he sells throughout the rest of his book and through his university and other publications. He tells people that to inspire their children they have to be studying themselves in an aggressive course of study.
I believe this is what has happened to a lot of people that got swept into the TJEd movement. DeMille's ideas of reading classics and not pushing the student and returning to the old ways of educating leaders struck a chord with them and aroused a desire for the realization of the promise, but they weren't able to do a very careful evaluation of what DeMille was proposing because they really hadn't come across these ideas before. They bought the promise that TJEd would create leaders out of their children, and now they are doing everything they can to realize that promise, regardless of the results they are actually seeing.But it's even worse than that. Even after people try to do TJEd, they are told there is yet more they need to do in order to do it right. The more you learn about TJEd, the more you learn that it is very complex and there are so many things you need to do in order to do it right. It's like you can never actually be successful at doing it. The goalposts keep moving, and new requirements keep getting added (like an "Eighth Key").
I just want to write my thoughts as I reread TJEd so I don't forget. Besides, knowing I have an audience forces me to clarify my thinking in a way that jotting down notes doesn't. The more I look into TJEd the more I am disinclined to affiliate myself with it. Although, that doesn't mean I won't take what I like--especially from the Home Companion. In all honesty, I can't see myself aligning myself with any particular strain of homeschooling because I like to do things the way I like to do them. That seems to be the approach most homeschoolers take anyway--steal what they like from every style and make it their own. That's me. That's where I am.
I agree . . . I think there are many homeschoolers who take what they like and make it their own, which is why it's hard to find homeschooling families who match up with your ideals. I do believe there has been a major "TJEd Following" that I admit really bothers me. My main sources: TJEd, Tanglewood.com, Everday Math cirriculum, brownielocks.com (my calendar obsession), the Classics!
My review of TJEd revisited:Chpt 1: "Is the education our children are receiving on par with their potential?" Something I need to be constantly asking myself as I continue homeschooling. Not only on par with their potential but learning what I want them to learn.
This is a tough one for me. I think I second-guess myself in what I'm teaching vs. what they could be learning in public school.
Chpt 2 (Education today): Dad marked and I agree with, "Any effort to 'fix education' will fail for two reasons. First, education is so many things to so many people" (pg. 12). "Second . . . Education can't be fixed as long as we believe this basic myth. The myth is that it is possible for one human being to educate another." To clarify, I agree completely with the idea that education is unfixable due to a general disagreement over the purpose of education. I do not believe that one human cannot educate another. If that were the case there would be no need for parents, teachers, mentors, or anything like unto it. Ridiculous, really.
However, I think this touches on the problem of blaming the teacher. As long as people blame the teacher instead of identifying other problems with the system the system won't ever be "fixed." Not that it can be fixed.
I have to say I never had the intention to homeschool because I was disenchanted with public schooling. Since hsing, I have heard horror stories and do feel there is a problem with the system. "The myth is that it is possible for one human being to educate another." What does this even mean anyway? I'd have to read it in exact context I think (but my book is loaned out at the moment)
Chpt 3 (Three Systems of Schooling), or the chapter that BUGS ME: "What happens if you get ahead? A factory worker moves you back into place." (Dad marked that with a "what?") Again, ridiculous, as Kami pointed out in her review of TJEd.The biggest problem with the chapter is the section called "The Competitive Conveyor Belt": "But once you're in that percentile, once you make it and say, 'I'm in Harvard,' you are required to get on the conveyor belt for several yars until they stamp another diploma on your forehead. Yo usay, 'But I want to think; I want to be a leader.' The institutional response is that there is time for that later, after you have graduated; for now you need to focus on your conveyor belt studies." The conveyor belt studies that don't teach you to think like the Scientific Method, or the philosophy of logics, or history papers that require only primary sources as references? I'm offended by his assertion that you don't learn how to think at school. Any math class is a class that teaches thinking. Any science class is teaching you about how the world works--and that's thinking. When he bashes my education when I have a masters degree and tells me I need a degree from his non-accredited university that only serves the function of funneling hard earned dollars to him with no benefit to the student--I get a little aggrieved. Dad marked with a huh? Totally. pg. 26
Now this is where I will beg to differ just bit. Why? Because I lived this kind of life growing up (I think). Not to blame anyone around me but myself. I was just clueless. I did good in school. But while my friends were taking AP classes, I had no clue what they were (I think I was in the AP English class but had no clue I was in it!). I did what my teachers told me, took the tests, got the grades and moved on. I would argue that not in every math class are you taught to think at all! Maybe doing the same type of problem over and over is considered thinking, but I was just following the step by step guide in how to do it, not really thinking on my own. I do firmly believe that public school can be a conveyor belt education. I would even say up until my last year of college, when I "got into" the classes for my major, did I really learn to love learning, not just do the required steps to get the diploma. He is harsh regarding diplomas, however, and I am still one who believes strongly in getting those certificates, but I hope that I can teach my children better HOW to think and not WHAT to think.
That chpt also talks about socialization: pg 28: "The highest level of socialization, the ideal, means the ability to effectively work with people of all backgrounds, stations, and positions, of really caring about them and being able to build an dmaintain long term, nurturing relationships. The conveyor belt, by its very nature, discourages this." I have to agree with him there. However, public schools do teach you how to have a thick skin and that is an important life skill as well.
PS may teach you to have a thick skin, but is it really worth it? I mean, I could have done away with my whole 7th & 8th grade years and probably come out with thicker skin than I did because I was so attached to the opinions of others on my character. Again, to nobody's fault, I have always had that dependency, and being in friendship battles did not help, it hurt. But, I ask myself, am I sheltering my kids from those experiences? Were they more necessary than I give them credit for?
Pg. 32: "During this phase (core) attention should be given above all to the nurture of a happy, interactive, confident child through the lessons that occur naturally during work and play in the family setting." DeMille's emphasis on not pushing a child too fast has always appealed to me because I have long argued that elementary aged students are expected to do too much too soon in the US.
So when will do you require? Do you require at this age (other than chores)? (more on requiring later I think)
7 keys:classics, not textbooks: Although DeMille says this, he doesn't always follow it and that's because it is basically stupid. Both classics and textbooks have their place and are useful. I'm not going to understand Euclid before I have some basics down and one of the best places to get basics is through textbooks. Besides that, I don't really believe that reading Euclid is necessary for me to have a great education.
Dad marked under that section, "As students become familiar with and eventually conversant with the great ideas of humanity, they learn how to think, how to lead, and how to become great." pg. 40. This is what DeMille does well. He reiterates the importance of the classics, or a classical education. I always agree with him when he sticks to this topic because I cannot think of a better way to educate than through reading great books, discussing them, and writing about them. However, his "method" becomes more complex all the time and that bugs me.
I would agree with this as well. I do think that textbooks still do have their places. I do use a textbook for math . . . it just makes sense. However, DeMille did make me think outside the box in how we also use classics to inspire our children in all subjects. I like that. I like what your dad said as well!
Mentors, Not professors: again, bugged by the way he titles it. I had excellent professors that were mentors. By his very definition of mentor, anyone could fall into that category including profs. Especially profs as they have incredible skill sets and knowledge. Also, he tends to bug me with his classical education leadership model in that learning a trade doesn't make you less able to be a leader. Knowing how to fix something sharpens your brain's ability to solve problems (think) also. It isn't an "only" situation. Also, DeMille said that only the student can choose to be educated. If a student chooses to learn he can learn in a classroom of twenty as easily as by himself. The student will take the initiative and personalize himself if he wants a quality education so DeMille undermined his own arguments for homeschooling.
First of all, I do agree with the "only" statement. You notice in this book that there are lot of "onlys" "shoulds" "always" & "nevers." To me that comes across at tad too bit egotistical. However, I do have a differing opinion on this key as well. I can't say I've had mentors. Teachers, yes, some better than others, but I wouldn't call them mentors. Again, probably my own faulty way of thinking. I could never have a true discussion with an adult if my opinon slightly differed from theirs. They were the authority, not the mentor and guide open for discussion. I think there are some inspirational teachers out there, don't get me wrong, I have a few I loved. BUT I think there are so many students that it's hard to get that personal one-on-one mentoring that makes mentoring different from professors. I think that's the essence of what DeMille is trying to say.
My Mentors are authors such as Linda Eyre, Leo Buscaglia, and Rafe Esquith . . . people who have inspired me through their writings to look outside the box and get off the conveyor belt!
Inspire, Not Require: This idea was initially the hardest one for me to swallow, but I've since thought about it more and actually believe it to a certain extent. . . . .I am, at heart, a require girl. I required excellence from my students and they delivered. They would never have risen to the level they did if all I did was inspire. Humans are naturally lazy. Do we really think we can change the entire natural man make-up of our children by embarking on a study plan for ourselves??? If nothing else our children might get turned off from school because they never graduate. They always have to do it!! That's one message our studying to inspire will send. I was able to get my students to achieve greatness by making sure they understood that I never gave assignments I didn't believe they could do. It was my faith in their ability to achieve that inspired them--not my example of study."Inspiring, in contrast to ignoring and forcing, means finding out what the students need and then creatively encouraging them to engage it on their own--with excitement and interest." pg. 43. I can agree with DeMille's explanation there, but that isn't what he sells throughout the rest of his book and through his university and other publications. He tells people that to inspire their children they have to be studying themselves in an aggressive course of study.
This one is tough for me. I've vacilated back and forth. I've been inconsistant . . . one week I'm totally requiring everything while the next I'm not requiring anything (nor inspiring much either!). :-) I like how Kelly has explained this. You decide what you require (i.e. housework, chores, etc.) and then you make them do those things over and over until they fit the standard. I'm not sure if I'm ready to accept that this is the only way they learn the value of sweating and hard work, but I'm still working on it. I do require some things as well, but when the requiring is damaging to my relationship with a child, I rethink and start the more inspirational method. :-)
I read the anti blog that Kelly talked about. The green below is what the anti guy wrote and the purple is a response to what he wrote. I liked what both people had to say on this issue.
I gained huge amounts of inspiration to push myself and achieve from the requirements of Basic Training that still affect me today. Doing your best, then blowing through that and excelling even farther is exhilarating. Often a person cannot simply inspire themselves to get to that point. They need help from outside. That's what coaches do. They observe the athlete and require them to perform better.
We are required to do lots of things in life, aren't we? I'm required to make money for my family. I am required to do some boring, non-inspiring things as part of that. We are required to clean up after ourselves. We are required to get along with others. We have obligations. I think there is some value in knowing how to deal with being required to do things, including things you don't want to do. Like anything else this can be taken to the extreme, but on both ends: of always requiring the child to do things, and never requiring the child to do things. That is I believe what most TJEders are trying to do, but this is a paralyzing point for many of them. I agree that too many of them out of fear of requiring ignore. But that doesn’t mean the principle is wrong, just that they don’t know how to inspire so they just give up. Inspiring is hard work it is a step beyond just saying “what do you want to do?” You must orchestrate an environment that encourages and guides kids to choose to study and learn. Most of the time this overwhelms parents.
First I have thoughts about those who create anti-anything blogs or . . .whatever. I don't want to sound ignorant or close-minded, but I just get frustrated when I see people use all their energy and their time to "bash" another's philosophy or viewpoint. If a guy wants to publish one article, great, but to spend so much time entering posts on why something is so horrible . . . it just doesn't jive well with me.
With that said . . . I do agree with some of the points made here as well. I'm a believer in the statement, "I can do hard things!" I don't think my kids say or believe that enough! However, part of making kids feel this way and want to work harder is by motivating, encouraging and uplifting rather than criticizing and correcting all the time! I am a bit of a criticizer. My expectations on "correctness" are sometimes blown too high. But, I think that's what DeMille means by Inspriring . . . building up, not tearing down (just like you say below). :-)
To summarize: DeMille thinks parents need to study themselves. I think that parents need to inspire by being enthusiastic and creating an atmosphere where school is enjoyable and not torture. Mostly though, I believe that people want more than anything else to feel successful at something just beyond their ability. In my own homeschool I will require--constantly--especially things that are hard and I will be demanding. Then, I will make sure that my children know that I believe completely in their capacity to do the hard things I'm requiring. Then, when they achieve their success will be sweet and real. That will motivate (inspire) them to continue to push themselves and achieve.
Structure time, not content: Miriam needs structure--therefore his "you're the expert in your own home" catch-all comes into play. Good thing he thought of that one to save his backside in case someone calls him on something.
This one works really, really well for me!
Quality, not conformity: "When Scholars do an assignment, either say 'great work' or 'do it again.'" pg. 46. One of my favorite ideas because I did it and my students performed.
Love this as well. Need to be better at it! I found when John was in K. he would cry if he didn't write his letters perfectly! So, I would just repeat, "Just do your best" to minimize his stress and frustration. I didn't want to create a perfectionist. Now, I'm seeing my follies in that he thinks medocre is his best! So, I'm now starting to do more of this, and he knows when he can do better, most times I don't need to tell him. :-)
Simplicity, not Complexity: YES, YES, YES. You don't have to make things complex. Read, write, discuss. I totally agree. Unfortunately, his method becomes more complex all the time. Four subsets of scholar phase??
I agree! After reading their Leadership book, I was entirely overwhelmed. I think it did get more complex, but I think it's partly because people don't know what "Study the Classics" really means and so they created some of these things to help the conveyor belt thinkers to use the method correclty (which keeps them from then getting off the belt, right?!). ha!
You, not them: First, it is proven that youth usually rise to the level of their parents' education. My own students told me they'd get by without a college education just as their parents did. Those who are used to the lifestyle more education provides generally get more education to maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Clearly, the more education you have as a parent the more likely your children are to be educated. However, I don't think that translates into a parent study all the time. Our season for intensive study is past. To me it seems selfish to think you can devote that much time to yourself at this juncture. Right now, I'm focusing on my children's education. I think my own educational track record set an adequate example.A response to anti (same person as above in purple)
I have found that almost anything I study with my kids they love. Not because I make them but because they catch my enthusiasm.
I agree 100% with the comment in purple. Again, I don't think being enthusiastic correlates with hours of intensive study.The issue of a "mission" or preparing your children for a "mission" is relatively new in TJEd and it gives me the creeps. It is too much of what teenagers are looking for--something to get passionate about. The church already provided for this need in humans: patriarchal blessings, songs like "Shall the youth of Zion falter," put on the armor of God, "Who's on the Lord's Side, Who?," waging war against sin, etc. We don't need to look elsewhere for inspiration. We don't need to worry about preparing our children for their "life mission." That's already covered in teaching them the gospel. I like what the same purple commentator said:
One further point that I would add to your concerns that you don’t address is the tendency of some TJEd families to neglect their responsibilities to care and teach their children because they have to “fulfill their mission.” This is a bigger concern to me because these parents understand how to inspire and have the skills and knowledge, but choose to do something else instead. “No success can compensate for failure in the home.” I won’t pretend to know all the answers, but I worry when I see parents choosing to go back to school or choosing to do community service to the neglect of their children. It happens. There are some families that maintain the balance and can do both, but it is HARD. If people who are struggling with the basics of homeschooling try to add “mission” into their life it can be a recipe for disaster. The greatest mission we can fulfill at this time and season is to be there for and with our children.
When I first heard of the Mission Phase, I was bugged by it too. Just the thought of having a mission other than motherhood gave me thoughts that I wasn't fulfilling what I needed to do here. Again, Kelly reminded me awhile back that studying parenting principles, how to feed your kids nutritiously, etc, are all a part of the mission. I agree we don't need to study all day, our noses in the books taking notes and preparing for tests. I appreciate your comments here, though, reminding me of that.
I think that You not Them means preparing yourself to teach your children. That's how I look at it anyway (maybe that's not fully what DeMille states). Just by reading and enriching our own minds how we do - - i.e. you read all the time, are living your lifelong dream of writing (hopefully publishing!) and adding new habits & talents into your life. The kids see their parents acheiving their goals and therefore they want to follow suit. It's when I worry about each individual's math lessons, and needing to read 15 min a day with each child individually, and checking off that they did their spelling for the week (in other words the CONTENT), that is when I am not longer enjoying myself. When I am reading things that are inspiring to me and working on my own projects, I feel more confident in teaching them. That's how I see the You not Them key anyway.
Anti brought up some good points:
When people tell me they are doing TJEd, but they don't really adhere to things like the keys or they question them or modify them for their family, I don't understand why those parents still believe those aspects of TJEd. If you have problems with the keys, why do you even believe they are keys? This is what I am getting at. I know a lot of parents don't do TJEd like DeMille says you should, yet they still accept DeMille's assertions of how you should do TJEd.
What's the point of "certification?"As I go to homeschool conferences and browse seminars and courses online and talk to people involved in TJEd, I find a lot of "training" and "inspiration" about doing TJEd. I see moms "doing their 5 Pillars" which is a certification from George Wythe College that indicates that you know how to do "Leadership Education.""Certification endorses an individual’s knowledge and ability in the Classics/Mentors approach to teaching leaders by incorporating all Five Pillars into an overall approach to education—the approach which has trained great leaders from Washington, Jefferson and Abigail Adams to Lincoln, Churchill and Gandhi."
I believe this is what has happened to a lot of people that got swept into the TJEd movement. DeMille's ideas of reading classics and not pushing the student and returning to the old ways of educating leaders struck a chord with them and aroused a desire for the realization of the promise, but they weren't able to do a very careful evaluation of what DeMille was proposing because they really hadn't come across these ideas before. They bought the promise that TJEd would create leaders out of their children, and now they are doing everything they can to realize that promise, regardless of the results they are actually seeing.But it's even worse than that. Even after people try to do TJEd, they are told there is yet more they need to do in order to do it right. The more you learn about TJEd, the more you learn that it is very complex and there are so many things you need to do in order to do it right. It's like you can never actually be successful at doing it. The goalposts keep moving, and new requirements keep getting added (like an "Eighth Key").
I thought there were some good points in here as well. There is a group of "followers." I would say I follow the TJEd methods, to an extent. I'm not sure that makes me NOT a true TJEd follower or not. I think with so much emphasis on "Make it your own" there are a lot of "rules" to being successful. Again, though, I think it's the idea of taking the principles and applying them to your life. For instance, (not saying TJEd is the gospel) but if you take "Honoring the Sabbath Day" - - each family has their unique ideas on how that can be done. Some don't think going to the park with your family is honoring the Sabbath while others find that to be a peaceful and enjoyable time with family. So, it get hairy when you place specific rules (and place judgement on those "not following") on the basic principles of the method.
The following is a quote from DeMille that I find disturbing. He's basically saying that if you find things wrong with TJEd, don't worry about it. Trust in the process. STOP THINKING.
Ha! Ha! I thought this was funny!
+++++++++
That's really all I have to say (I know, you're begging for more!). My experience with TJEd have only been inspiring, helping me to think in a different way than what is natural for me. So, for that I will always be grateful that I stumbled upon these books, and also will refer to them frequently as my children progress through their own phases (TJEd or not!).
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Which book?
A Passion for the Impossible is by who?
My library system doesn't have it, but when I looked at half.com they listed three books with that title (but different authors). I'm thinking it's the first one...about Lilias Trotter?
I'll for sure read Churchill...already got it reserved.
My library system doesn't have it, but when I looked at half.com they listed three books with that title (but different authors). I'm thinking it's the first one...about Lilias Trotter?
I'll for sure read Churchill...already got it reserved.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Dividing Lines
I'm not finishing this any time soon. I had my dad check it out for me at the university library but he sent the TA and the TA doesn't get unlimited check out times like Dad. So, the book is due back at the library. I'm going to try and get dad to check it out for me on my card. We'll see.
In the meantime, I'm picking up A Passion for the Impossible in a few days. I want to read it quick to give me lots of time for Churchill!!
In the meantime, I'm picking up A Passion for the Impossible in a few days. I want to read it quick to give me lots of time for Churchill!!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
More TJEd--bear with
I just want to write my thoughts as I reread TJEd so I don't forget. Besides, knowing I have an audience forces me to clarify my thinking in a way that jotting down notes doesn't. The more I look into TJEd the more I am disinclined to affiliate myself with it. Although, that doesn't mean I won't take what I like--especially from the Home Companion. In all honesty, I can't see myself aligning myself with any particular strain of homeschooling because I like to do things the way I like to do them. That seems to be the approach most homeschoolers take anyway--steal what they like from every style and make it their own. That's me. That's where I am.
My review of TJEd revisited:
Chpt 1: "Is the education our children are receiving on par with their potential?" Something I need to be constantly asking myself as I continue homeschooling. Not only on par with their potential but learning what I want them to learn.
Chpt 2 (Education today): Dad marked and I agree with, "Any effort to 'fix education' will fail for two reasons. First, education is so many things to so many people" (pg. 12). "Second . . . Education can't be fixed as long as we believe this basic myth. The myth is that it is possible for one human being to educate another." To clarify, I agree completely with the idea that education is unfixable due to a general disagreement over the purpose of education. I do not believe that one human cannot educate another. If that were the case there would be no need for parents, teachers, mentors, or anything like unto it. Ridiculous, really.
However, I think this touches on the problem of blaming the teacher. As long as people blame the teacher instead of identifying other problems with the system the system won't ever be "fixed." Not that it can be fixed.
Chpt 3 (Three Systems of Schooling), or the chapter that BUGS ME: "What happens if you get ahead? A factory worker moves you back into place." (Dad marked that with a "what?") Again, ridiculous, as Kami pointed out in her review of TJEd.
The biggest problem with the chapter is the section called "The Competitive Conveyor Belt": "But once you're in that percentile, once you make it and say, 'I'm in Harvard,' you are required to get on the conveyor belt for several yars until they stamp another diploma on your forehead. Yo usay, 'But I want to think; I want to be a leader.' The institutional response is that there is time for that later, after you have graduated; for now you need to focus on your conveyor belt studies." The conveyor belt studies that don't teach you to think like the Scientific Method, or the philosophy of logics, or history papers that require only primary sources as references? I'm offended by his assertion that you don't learn how to think at school. Any math class is a class that teaches thinking. Any science class is teaching you about how the world works--and that's thinking. When he bashes my education when I have a masters degree and tells me I need a degree from his non-accredited university that only serves the function of funneling hard earned dollars to him with no benefit to the student--I get a little aggrieved. Dad marked with a huh? Totally. pg. 26
That chpt also talks about socialization: pg 28: "The highest level of socialization, the ideal, means the ability to effectively work with people of all backgrounds, stations, and positions, of really caring about them and being able to build an dmaintain long term, nurturing relationships. The conveyor belt, by its very nature, discourages this." I have to agree with him there. However, public schools do teach you how to have a thick skin and that is an important life skill as well.
Pg. 32: "During this phase (core) attention should be given above all to the nurture of a happy, interactive, confident child through the lessons that occur naturally during work and play in the family setting." DeMille's emphasis on not pushing a child too fast has always appealed to me because I have long argued that elementary aged students are expected to do too much too soon in the US.
pg. 33: "Rather, in the areas of exploration and skills building, the parent/mentor should be wary of establishing premature and unnecessary standards of 'correctness' on points that will later be obvious and require no criticism." This was listed under love of learning principles. I agree.
pg 34: talks about scholars having "defined responsibilities" that are full-time jobs--like making dinner every night. I believe our young people don't do enough in the home to feel a part of it--whether or not parents use DeMille's approach or another, they should be requiring more full-time participation in the running of the household from each member of the family.
7 keys:
classics, not textbooks: Although DeMille says this, he doesn't always follow it and that's because it is basically stupid. Both classics and textbooks have their place and are useful. I'm not going to understand Euclid before I have some basics down and one of the best places to get basics is through textbooks. Besides that, I don't really believe that reading Euclid is necessary for me to have a great education.
Dad marked under that section, "As students become familiar with and eventually conversant with the great ideas of humanity, they learn how to think, how to lead, and how to become great." pg. 40. This is what DeMille does well. He reiterates the importance of the classics, or a classical education. I always agree with him when he sticks to this topic because I cannot think of a better way to educate than through reading great books, discussing them, and writing about them. However, his "method" becomes more complex all the time and that bugs me.
Mentors, Not professors: again, bugged by the way he titles it. I had excellent professors that were mentors. By his very definition of mentor, anyone could fall into that category including profs. Especially profs as they have incredible skill sets and knowledge. Also, he tends to bug me with his classical education leadership model in that learning a trade doesn't make you less able to be a leader. Knowing how to fix something sharpens your brain's ability to solve problems (think) also. It isn't an "only" situation. Also, DeMille said that only the student can choose to be educated. If a student chooses to learn he can learn in a classroom of twenty as easily as by himself. The student will take the initiative and personalize himself if he wants a quality education so DeMille undermined his own arguments for homeschooling.
Inspire, Not Require: This idea was initially the hardest one for me to swallow, but I've since thought about it more and actually believe it to a certain extent. For example, my student Steven. When I taught I gave weekly book reviews to my students about books that I love. Once I made the mistake of telling my 7th graders about a Juliet Marieller book I had just finished that was FANTASTIC. I was very enthusiastic because I had just finished it and LOVED it. Later, I saw Steven reading the book. I had inspired him. However, the book was way too mature for a 7th grader and had a nasty rape scene. Oops. I hadn't thought through what being excited about the book would lead to.
Another story. I showed my son Cowen a Robin McKinley book about a girl who fights dragons. I told him a lot of the plot line and made it sound really exciting (easy to do because it is a great book). Cowen carries that book around now and calls it his "favorite book." He can't read it, obviously, and won't for years. But he knows the basic story and knows that I told him he would love it and he believed me. That's inspiring.
However, I am, at heart, a require girl. I required excellence from my students and they delivered. They would never have risen to the level they did if all I did was inspire. Humans are naturally lazy. Do we really think we can change the entire natural man make-up of our children by embarking on a study plan for ourselves??? If nothing else our children might get turned off from school because they never graduate. They always have to do it!! That's one message our studying to inspire will send. I was able to get my students to achieve greatness by making sure they understood that I never gave assignments I didn't believe they could do. It was my faith in their ability to achieve that inspired them--not my example of study.
"Inspiring, in contrast to ignoring and forcing, means finding out what the students need and then creatively encouraging them to engage it on their own--with excitement and interest." pg. 43. I can agree with DeMille's explanation there, but that isn't what he sells throughout the rest of his book and through his university and other publications. He tells people that to inspire their children they have to be studying themselves in an aggressive course of study.
Structure time, not content: Miriam needs structure--therefore his "you're the expert in your own home" catch-all comes into play. Good thing he thought of that one to save his backside in case someone calls him on something.
Quality, not conformity: "When Scholars do an assignment, either say 'great work' or 'do it again.'" pg. 46. One of my favorite ideas because I did it and my students performed.
Simplicity, not Complexity: YES, YES, YES. You don't have to make things complex. Read, write, discuss. I totally agree. Unfortunately, his method becomes more complex all the time. Four subsets of scholar phase??
You, not them: First, it is proven that youth usually rise to the level of their parents' education. My own students told me they'd get by without a college education just as their parents did. Those who are used to the lifestyle more education provides generally get more education to maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Clearly, the more education you have as a parent the more likely your children are to be educated. However, I don't think that translates into a parent study all the time. Our season for intensive study is past. To me it seems selfish to think you can devote that much time to yourself at this juncture. Right now, I'm focusing on my children's education. I think my own educational track record set an adequate example.
A response to anti (same person as above in purple)
My review of TJEd revisited:
Chpt 1: "Is the education our children are receiving on par with their potential?" Something I need to be constantly asking myself as I continue homeschooling. Not only on par with their potential but learning what I want them to learn.
Chpt 2 (Education today): Dad marked and I agree with, "Any effort to 'fix education' will fail for two reasons. First, education is so many things to so many people" (pg. 12). "Second . . . Education can't be fixed as long as we believe this basic myth. The myth is that it is possible for one human being to educate another." To clarify, I agree completely with the idea that education is unfixable due to a general disagreement over the purpose of education. I do not believe that one human cannot educate another. If that were the case there would be no need for parents, teachers, mentors, or anything like unto it. Ridiculous, really.
However, I think this touches on the problem of blaming the teacher. As long as people blame the teacher instead of identifying other problems with the system the system won't ever be "fixed." Not that it can be fixed.
Chpt 3 (Three Systems of Schooling), or the chapter that BUGS ME: "What happens if you get ahead? A factory worker moves you back into place." (Dad marked that with a "what?") Again, ridiculous, as Kami pointed out in her review of TJEd.
The biggest problem with the chapter is the section called "The Competitive Conveyor Belt": "But once you're in that percentile, once you make it and say, 'I'm in Harvard,' you are required to get on the conveyor belt for several yars until they stamp another diploma on your forehead. Yo usay, 'But I want to think; I want to be a leader.' The institutional response is that there is time for that later, after you have graduated; for now you need to focus on your conveyor belt studies." The conveyor belt studies that don't teach you to think like the Scientific Method, or the philosophy of logics, or history papers that require only primary sources as references? I'm offended by his assertion that you don't learn how to think at school. Any math class is a class that teaches thinking. Any science class is teaching you about how the world works--and that's thinking. When he bashes my education when I have a masters degree and tells me I need a degree from his non-accredited university that only serves the function of funneling hard earned dollars to him with no benefit to the student--I get a little aggrieved. Dad marked with a huh? Totally. pg. 26
That chpt also talks about socialization: pg 28: "The highest level of socialization, the ideal, means the ability to effectively work with people of all backgrounds, stations, and positions, of really caring about them and being able to build an dmaintain long term, nurturing relationships. The conveyor belt, by its very nature, discourages this." I have to agree with him there. However, public schools do teach you how to have a thick skin and that is an important life skill as well.
Pg. 32: "During this phase (core) attention should be given above all to the nurture of a happy, interactive, confident child through the lessons that occur naturally during work and play in the family setting." DeMille's emphasis on not pushing a child too fast has always appealed to me because I have long argued that elementary aged students are expected to do too much too soon in the US.
pg. 33: "Rather, in the areas of exploration and skills building, the parent/mentor should be wary of establishing premature and unnecessary standards of 'correctness' on points that will later be obvious and require no criticism." This was listed under love of learning principles. I agree.
pg 34: talks about scholars having "defined responsibilities" that are full-time jobs--like making dinner every night. I believe our young people don't do enough in the home to feel a part of it--whether or not parents use DeMille's approach or another, they should be requiring more full-time participation in the running of the household from each member of the family.
7 keys:
classics, not textbooks: Although DeMille says this, he doesn't always follow it and that's because it is basically stupid. Both classics and textbooks have their place and are useful. I'm not going to understand Euclid before I have some basics down and one of the best places to get basics is through textbooks. Besides that, I don't really believe that reading Euclid is necessary for me to have a great education.
Dad marked under that section, "As students become familiar with and eventually conversant with the great ideas of humanity, they learn how to think, how to lead, and how to become great." pg. 40. This is what DeMille does well. He reiterates the importance of the classics, or a classical education. I always agree with him when he sticks to this topic because I cannot think of a better way to educate than through reading great books, discussing them, and writing about them. However, his "method" becomes more complex all the time and that bugs me.
Mentors, Not professors: again, bugged by the way he titles it. I had excellent professors that were mentors. By his very definition of mentor, anyone could fall into that category including profs. Especially profs as they have incredible skill sets and knowledge. Also, he tends to bug me with his classical education leadership model in that learning a trade doesn't make you less able to be a leader. Knowing how to fix something sharpens your brain's ability to solve problems (think) also. It isn't an "only" situation. Also, DeMille said that only the student can choose to be educated. If a student chooses to learn he can learn in a classroom of twenty as easily as by himself. The student will take the initiative and personalize himself if he wants a quality education so DeMille undermined his own arguments for homeschooling.
Inspire, Not Require: This idea was initially the hardest one for me to swallow, but I've since thought about it more and actually believe it to a certain extent. For example, my student Steven. When I taught I gave weekly book reviews to my students about books that I love. Once I made the mistake of telling my 7th graders about a Juliet Marieller book I had just finished that was FANTASTIC. I was very enthusiastic because I had just finished it and LOVED it. Later, I saw Steven reading the book. I had inspired him. However, the book was way too mature for a 7th grader and had a nasty rape scene. Oops. I hadn't thought through what being excited about the book would lead to.
Another story. I showed my son Cowen a Robin McKinley book about a girl who fights dragons. I told him a lot of the plot line and made it sound really exciting (easy to do because it is a great book). Cowen carries that book around now and calls it his "favorite book." He can't read it, obviously, and won't for years. But he knows the basic story and knows that I told him he would love it and he believed me. That's inspiring.
However, I am, at heart, a require girl. I required excellence from my students and they delivered. They would never have risen to the level they did if all I did was inspire. Humans are naturally lazy. Do we really think we can change the entire natural man make-up of our children by embarking on a study plan for ourselves??? If nothing else our children might get turned off from school because they never graduate. They always have to do it!! That's one message our studying to inspire will send. I was able to get my students to achieve greatness by making sure they understood that I never gave assignments I didn't believe they could do. It was my faith in their ability to achieve that inspired them--not my example of study.
"Inspiring, in contrast to ignoring and forcing, means finding out what the students need and then creatively encouraging them to engage it on their own--with excitement and interest." pg. 43. I can agree with DeMille's explanation there, but that isn't what he sells throughout the rest of his book and through his university and other publications. He tells people that to inspire their children they have to be studying themselves in an aggressive course of study.
I read the anti blog that Kelly talked about. The green below is what the anti guy wrote and the purple is a response to what he wrote. I liked what both people had to say on this issue.
I gained huge amounts of inspiration to push myself and achieve from the requirements of Basic Training that still affect me today. Doing your best, then blowing through that and excelling even farther is exhilarating. Often a person cannot simply inspire themselves to get to that point. They need help from outside. That's what coaches do. They observe the athlete and require them to perform better.
We are required to do lots of things in life, aren't we? I'm required to make money for my family. I am required to do some boring, non-inspiring things as part of that. We are required to clean up after ourselves. We are required to get along with others. We have obligations. I think there is some value in knowing how to deal with being required to do things, including things you don't want to do. Like anything else this can be taken to the extreme, but on both ends: of always requiring the child to do things, and never requiring the child to do things.
That is I believe what most TJEders are trying to do, but this is a paralyzing point for many of them. I agree that too many of them out of fear of requiring ignore. But that doesn’t mean the principle is wrong, just that they don’t know how to inspire so they just give up. Inspiring is hard work it is a step beyond just saying “what do you want to do?” You must orchestrate an environment that encourages and guides kids to choose to study and learn. Most of the time this overwhelms parents.
To summarize: DeMille thinks parents need to study themselves. I think that parents need to inspire by being enthusiastic and creating an atmosphere where school is enjoyable and not torture. Mostly though, I believe that people want more than anything else to feel successful at something just beyond their ability. In my own homeschool I will require--constantly--especially things that are hard and I will be demanding. Then, I will make sure that my children know that I believe completely in their capacity to do the hard things I'm requiring. Then, when they achieve their success will be sweet and real. That will motivate (inspire) them to continue to push themselves and achieve.Structure time, not content: Miriam needs structure--therefore his "you're the expert in your own home" catch-all comes into play. Good thing he thought of that one to save his backside in case someone calls him on something.
Quality, not conformity: "When Scholars do an assignment, either say 'great work' or 'do it again.'" pg. 46. One of my favorite ideas because I did it and my students performed.
Simplicity, not Complexity: YES, YES, YES. You don't have to make things complex. Read, write, discuss. I totally agree. Unfortunately, his method becomes more complex all the time. Four subsets of scholar phase??
You, not them: First, it is proven that youth usually rise to the level of their parents' education. My own students told me they'd get by without a college education just as their parents did. Those who are used to the lifestyle more education provides generally get more education to maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Clearly, the more education you have as a parent the more likely your children are to be educated. However, I don't think that translates into a parent study all the time. Our season for intensive study is past. To me it seems selfish to think you can devote that much time to yourself at this juncture. Right now, I'm focusing on my children's education. I think my own educational track record set an adequate example.
A response to anti (same person as above in purple)
I have found that almost anything I study with my kids they love. Not because I make them but because they catch my enthusiasm.
I agree 100% with the comment in purple. Again, I don't think being enthusiastic correlates with hours of intensive study.
The issue of a "mission" or preparing your children for a "mission" is relatively new in TJEd and it gives me the creeps. It is too much of what teenagers are looking for--something to get passionate about. The church already provided for this need in humans: patriarchal blessings, songs like "Shall the youth of Zion falter," put on the armor of God, "Who's on the Lord's Side, Who?," waging war against sin, etc. We don't need to look elsewhere for inspiration. We don't need to worry about preparing our children for their "life mission." That's already covered in teaching them the gospel. I like what the same purple commentator said:One further point that I would add to your concerns that you don’t address is the tendency of some TJEd families to neglect their responsibilities to care and teach their children because they have to “fulfill their mission.” This is a bigger concern to me because these parents understand how to inspire and have the skills and knowledge, but choose to do something else instead. “No success can compensate for failure in the home.” I won’t pretend to know all the answers, but I worry when I see parents choosing to go back to school or choosing to do community service to the neglect of their children. It happens. There are some families that maintain the balance and can do both, but it is HARD. If people who are struggling with the basics of homeschooling try to add “mission” into their life it can be a recipe for disaster. The greatest mission we can fulfill at this time and season is to be there for and with our children.
Anti brought up some good points:
When people tell me they are doing TJEd, but they don't really adhere to things like the keys or they question them or modify them for their family, I don't understand why those parents still believe those aspects of TJEd. If you have problems with the keys, why do you even believe they are keys? This is what I am getting at. I know a lot of parents don't do TJEd like DeMille says you should, yet they still accept DeMille's assertions of how you should do TJEd.
What's the point of "certification?"As I go to homeschool conferences and browse seminars and courses online and talk to people involved in TJEd, I find a lot of "training" and "inspiration" about doing TJEd. I see moms "doing their 5 Pillars" which is a certification from George Wythe College that indicates that you know how to do "Leadership Education."
"Certification endorses an individual’s knowledge and ability in the Classics/Mentors approach to teaching leaders by incorporating all Five Pillars into an overall approach to education—the approach which has trained great leaders from Washington, Jefferson and Abigail Adams to Lincoln, Churchill and Gandhi." online page at George Wythe CollegeNow, why does anyone have to certify that a person is a mentor, or is proficient in their "knowledge and ability" in using the classics and mentors? Leaders have to be certified? Mentors too? I thought the whole point was on how to think. Are they certifying people that they know how to think? And why does George Wythe College think they are in any position to be certifying anyone? What are their achievements?
I believe this is what has happened to a lot of people that got swept into the TJEd movement. DeMille's ideas of reading classics and not pushing the student and returning to the old ways of educating leaders struck a chord with them and aroused a desire for the realization of the promise, but they weren't able to do a very careful evaluation of what DeMille was proposing because they really hadn't come across these ideas before. They bought the promise that TJEd would create leaders out of their children, and now they are doing everything they can to realize that promise, regardless of the results they are actually seeing.But it's even worse than that. Even after people try to do TJEd, they are told there is yet more they need to do in order to do it right. The more you learn about TJEd, the more you learn that it is very complex and there are so many things you need to do in order to do it right. It's like you can never actually be successful at doing it. The goalposts keep moving, and new requirements keep getting added (like an "Eighth Key").
The following is a quote from DeMille that I find disturbing. He's basically saying that if you find things wrong with TJEd, don't worry about it. Trust in the process. STOP THINKING.
When the temptation to return to requiring, textbooks, canned curriculum, and even public school arises, we as parents must go back to those feelings present when we first felt that TJEd was right for our family. We can trust that desire to give our children a chance to become truly educated, great men and women of character who will someday change the world. Our children have important missions to fulfill, And parents are equipped to help them live up to those missions. But we have to trust our hearts, our feelings, those whisperings from God.Trusting the process yields the best results for a true Leadership Education. Just keep moving forward on the path you have chosen.
Here's another comment I found helpful:
From Jim’s blog: “part of the point of the college is that most mainstream credentials are in fact not useful.”
This may be my main beef with GWC/TJE. I am in full agreement that K-12 education (and some introductory college classes) can become victims of the “conveyor belt” syndrome. But MAs and PhDs in the liberal arts are very much like what TJE advocates–only we call them “thesis advisors” and “dissertation advisors” instead of “mentors.” Hence, the hostility to these credentials by TJE’ers is baffling to me.
“GWC does not hire specialized credentialed professors unless they DEMONSTRATE they have a broad and deep liberal education.”
A PhD from an accredited, respected university does in fact demonstrate this.
Comment by Julie M. Smith on June 1st 2008 at 11:35 pm
Read this--especially the last comment.
In summary, the more I study DeMille the more I think he took the basics of a liberal arts education, correlated them with some things that parents already do instinctively (inspire), bashed the current system to validate people's decision to homeschool, and then figured out how to make the most money possible off of his "system."
That might sound harsh considering I agree with the basic tenet of read, write, discuss--but there you have it.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Edith Hamilton
I just thought that you all might find interesting the biography of the woman who's quote is on our header. Here's the link to the auspicious Wikipedia article. :)
The Bronze Bow
First of all, I'm glad you liked The Glimpses of the Moon, Julia. I was hoping you would. I thought it was good because every character seemed so realistic to me. And there was such a wide array of characters--like you said--to display the difference of the eat, drink and be merry crowd to the more worthwhile life. I also like the descriptions of marriage in it, and how the author made the point that yes, in a marriage you can mess it all up, but if you really love someone you can forgive and move on again. Also I love that no one character was perfect, all had flaws, albeit very different flaws. Really, I just love Edith Wharton for that--she captures the multitude of humanity in her characters with all their many facets too. Her characters are never one-dimensional. So good.
Anyway, I did read The Bronze Bow, although I'm still in the middle of Hamlet. I really don't have much to say on it, but I did really like it. I never realized it was by the same author as The Witch of Blackbird pond before.
First of all, what I thought about most after reading it was what happened next? When Christ was crucified would Daniel stay converted, or would he lose faith? Was Joel ever converted? Would Malthrace's father ever allow her to marry Daniel? What happened with the Roman soldier and Leah? Obviously, from my many questions, the author did an excellent job of sucking me in and ending it just right, since neatly tied up books bother me--too unrealistic.
Secondly, I agree with Andrea that mostly the book was about Daniel growing up--losing his idealism that hallmarks youth and gaining wisdom in the process. Joel in this sense bothered me, he seemed as smart as kid as Daniel, but after his capture and escape, he did not seem to grow up at all. That was the only part that didn't ring true to me. Why would he still wish to join Rosh, if Rosh had refused to help him? Surely Daniel would have explained what happened. I guess as a secondary character the author just conveniently whisked him off to Jerusalem to clear the way for the end of the story. However, she could have just as easily had him sneak off to tell Daniel that he had made the choice to go to Jerusalem and wanted to see him one last time. Anyway, as you can tell that bothered me a bit. Funny how such little things drag at a story.
My favorite description that I thought the author captured superbly was how Daniel felt when he went back to join the thieves for the second to the last time. He saw their unconcern for him, he knew the other side of their robberies--the people who were losing out. He saw their hypocrisy, and finally recognized Rosh for what he was. While in less extreme situations, I think that is one of the main things any person learns as they grow up, that things are never the same when you go back. No matter how much you wish for your friends or your family to remain unchanged, whenever you leave--or even as you learn--they (or you) won't ever have the same feeling as they had when you were last amongst them.
I also liked how the author had the character of the Roman soldier who liked Leah. Through that one random soldier and the one line from Leah who said he was homesick, the whole of the Roman army gained humanity. Without that, as a reader, you might never really have sympathy for them or truly be able to apply (in context of understanding the book) the teaching of Christ to love your enemies. It was brilliant.
Well, those were my thoughts, brief as they were. Someday I'll finish Hamlet and post about it. Chao.
Anyway, I did read The Bronze Bow, although I'm still in the middle of Hamlet. I really don't have much to say on it, but I did really like it. I never realized it was by the same author as The Witch of Blackbird pond before.
First of all, what I thought about most after reading it was what happened next? When Christ was crucified would Daniel stay converted, or would he lose faith? Was Joel ever converted? Would Malthrace's father ever allow her to marry Daniel? What happened with the Roman soldier and Leah? Obviously, from my many questions, the author did an excellent job of sucking me in and ending it just right, since neatly tied up books bother me--too unrealistic.
Secondly, I agree with Andrea that mostly the book was about Daniel growing up--losing his idealism that hallmarks youth and gaining wisdom in the process. Joel in this sense bothered me, he seemed as smart as kid as Daniel, but after his capture and escape, he did not seem to grow up at all. That was the only part that didn't ring true to me. Why would he still wish to join Rosh, if Rosh had refused to help him? Surely Daniel would have explained what happened. I guess as a secondary character the author just conveniently whisked him off to Jerusalem to clear the way for the end of the story. However, she could have just as easily had him sneak off to tell Daniel that he had made the choice to go to Jerusalem and wanted to see him one last time. Anyway, as you can tell that bothered me a bit. Funny how such little things drag at a story.
My favorite description that I thought the author captured superbly was how Daniel felt when he went back to join the thieves for the second to the last time. He saw their unconcern for him, he knew the other side of their robberies--the people who were losing out. He saw their hypocrisy, and finally recognized Rosh for what he was. While in less extreme situations, I think that is one of the main things any person learns as they grow up, that things are never the same when you go back. No matter how much you wish for your friends or your family to remain unchanged, whenever you leave--or even as you learn--they (or you) won't ever have the same feeling as they had when you were last amongst them.
I also liked how the author had the character of the Roman soldier who liked Leah. Through that one random soldier and the one line from Leah who said he was homesick, the whole of the Roman army gained humanity. Without that, as a reader, you might never really have sympathy for them or truly be able to apply (in context of understanding the book) the teaching of Christ to love your enemies. It was brilliant.
Well, those were my thoughts, brief as they were. Someday I'll finish Hamlet and post about it. Chao.
Book List?
I've looked over the blog posts and cannot find the book list we decided upon.
Can you please remind me what is after Dividing Lines? Thanks!
JULIA
Can you please remind me what is after Dividing Lines? Thanks!
JULIA
The Glimpses of the Moon
I finished it. It was a beautiful story. I loved the endings (I'm a stickler on endings, they make or break a book for me). So, it was definitely worth reading. Still not my favorite style of writing, that era is just weird to me. Very lias fare (sp?). I guess that's what the book was all about though, wasn't it. The attitude of "eat drink and be merry" vs. the more honest and grounded lifestyle of Nick & Susy. Thank you for the recommendation!
I am currently reading "The Historian" by Elizabeth Kostova. It's a novel about the history & myths behind Dracula. I'm just barely into it, and it's a thick book! But, I'm starting to feel it build, and hear it is a very good book!
Dividing Lines: I tried . . . and tried . . . and tried to get itnot it. Didn't happen for me. I just couldn't get into it and then it was due today. So, I'm going to have to move onto the next one. What is it? :-) I'll figure it out.
I am currently reading "The Historian" by Elizabeth Kostova. It's a novel about the history & myths behind Dracula. I'm just barely into it, and it's a thick book! But, I'm starting to feel it build, and hear it is a very good book!
Dividing Lines: I tried . . . and tried . . . and tried to get itnot it. Didn't happen for me. I just couldn't get into it and then it was due today. So, I'm going to have to move onto the next one. What is it? :-) I'll figure it out.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
different topic
I'm reading "Imperial Woman" (Pearl S. Buck) for RS bookclub. Have any of you read it? Thoughts? I'm only about 1/3 - 1/2 through it so far. Chinese culture always fascinates me. I love reading what they would think of British/American foreigners.
What's in a name
Kammers, her name is JuliA. She doesn't like Julie. Thought I should tell you since she'd probably be too polite.
I'm naming my next boy Jude. I've decided having kids named after 60s/70s songs is the way to go.
I'm naming my next boy Jude. I've decided having kids named after 60s/70s songs is the way to go.
In response...
I just wanted to say, Julie, that I thought your idea about core values and the Proclamation on the family was dead on. And, I get worn out and want to go to bed with all this home schooling talk.
The end.
The end.
More from Me?
I agree with Kelly! When I first read the "Ingredients" book I was like, "I have to change my whole house to match theirs!" I'm a lot more calm now, realizing that it's my family. :-)
I was going to post this site earlier, and forgot: Tanglewood Education It's generally Charlotte Mason style. And I had yet another epiphany yesterday (for my family). I printed off the "Create Your Own Cirriculum" Plan for both John, Brooklynn and myself which we can each fill out for our individual plans for next year's studies. I'm excited to see if it will work.
**********************
I'm sorry! I could exhaust this topic to death! NOW we can get back to book blogging! :-)
JULIA
I was going to post this site earlier, and forgot: Tanglewood Education It's generally Charlotte Mason style. And I had yet another epiphany yesterday (for my family). I printed off the "Create Your Own Cirriculum" Plan for both John, Brooklynn and myself which we can each fill out for our individual plans for next year's studies. I'm excited to see if it will work.
**********************
I'm sorry! I could exhaust this topic to death! NOW we can get back to book blogging! :-)
JULIA
It's Not the Gospel
I just want to add something about TJED. It's not the gospel. It is not necessarily a heaven-inspired thing - therefore you just take what you want.
For the sake of balance, you might like to read this BLOG that is anti-TJED (to put it simply). The comments get a little viscious. And some of the things that are said are not true based on what I've read and heard. The reason I like reading this is because it gives me perspective and helps me to clarify what I like about TJED. Some quotes that the author of the blog uses to argue his point did not have the same negative application in my mind when I read "A Thomas Jefferson Education". And, I've done a lot more studying of TJED than he seems to have so I could see where some things that he quoted in the book have been clarified to make better sense in later articles by the DeMilles and others.
Julia mentioned the ingredients. I will say that some of those have definitely worked for me, and some have not, and that's okay. And of course, as is mentioned, we each have to do what is best for our family. No one method will work for one family completely - or perhaps for all their children. Which is why my homeschool research never really ends. I'm always learning new ways to present information and encourage my children. Along with TJED I have read some about Charlotte Mason (see www.amblesideonline.org) and liked what I read, and Maria Montessori (read her whole book and liked some, didn't like other parts). I've read Susan Wise Bauer's book "The Well-Trained Mind" and some of her other articles and books. I like her. I use her history curriculum. So I definitely have a mishmash, although I still consider myself to be basically a TJED parent. The big thing about TJED for me, is that is inspired ME to be better educated and a better educator. And that says a lot about the program's value. It's not meant to be followed lock-step (just do what the DeMilles do and you'll be fine - not!!!), it's not meant to be an excuse to sit around and read while your children do nothing all day. I think that "done" properly, this is harder than almost anything else because you are teaching your children through exciting/inspiring means, setting an example through your own studies, and working together (that's much harder than sending them out to play while you clean the house). It's a full-time job!!! Definitely not for the lazy. ( I think I got off on that tangent because that is one of the arguments made by the blog author that I disagreed with).
I got the link for the anti-TJEd blog from the LDS Homeschooling in CA yahoo group. But there was a reply to that, so I'm going to post it, too.
I hadn't yet read the anti-TJEd blog when I wrote my previous post about
TJEd.
He writes, "I don't view it as a waste if I can open the eyes of just one
TJEd devotee and prevent them from subjecting their children to this
impoverished pedagogy. I am doing it out of the goodness of my heart. I am
seeing too many relatives & acquaintances spend time and money on this."
I know Oliver DeMille personally, but I do not consider myself to be a
devotee of anyone except the Savior. And I resent the implication that my
children have received an inferior education. My husband and I have six
children, four of whom have graduated from college; the fifth receives his
AA this month, and the youngest is still under my tutelage. Just a couple
of weeks ago all my children were at home, and they began reminiscing about
their homeschooling experiences. The consensus was that it was so much fun
- and that they had read literally thousands of books.
Although I had a credential and had taught professionally, when I began
homeschooling, I felt a great weight of responsibility to understand how
children learn. There was no Internet and few books. I took extension
classes at a nearby university and read a lot. Probably the person who had
the greatest impact up to that time was Jeannette Vos. The second person
was Susan Kovalik.
Under their guidance and on my own, I discovered the same educational
principles outlined in TJEd (line upon line, precept upon precept), as I
homeschooled my own children. I did not read A Thomas Jefferson Education
until 2000; I had filed my first PSA in 1988.
Before that I was a college teacher for 9 years. If my students are to be
believed, I was a great teacher.
What does it mean when you say that so-and-so was a great teacher -- or
recall that that was a great book? What made them great?
It is that there ARE true principles of education -- and agency is one of
them.
I firmly believe that parents have stewardship for their children, and it is
their right to choose the educational model they will use. But that also
places a great responsibility on parents.
I would say that each of us has the responsibility to find out all we can
about the physiology of learning and the nature of education - especially as
it is outlined in the scriptures - even if we are not homeschooling. After
all, parenting is really synonymous with mentoring.
And the point of understanding the concepts of a leadership education (of
which TJEd is but one model) is not so that we can all use the same
terminology, but so that our children will realize their potential, maintain
their freedom, and ultimately fulfill the mission to which their Heavenly
Father called them.
That is not the purpose of the type of education most children receive using
the efficiency model of the public school system. The purpose of that
system is to prepare people for the work force. I want more for my children
and grandchildren.
Ok. I'm done with this!!! Just wanted to toss that out there.
For the sake of balance, you might like to read this BLOG that is anti-TJED (to put it simply). The comments get a little viscious. And some of the things that are said are not true based on what I've read and heard. The reason I like reading this is because it gives me perspective and helps me to clarify what I like about TJED. Some quotes that the author of the blog uses to argue his point did not have the same negative application in my mind when I read "A Thomas Jefferson Education". And, I've done a lot more studying of TJED than he seems to have so I could see where some things that he quoted in the book have been clarified to make better sense in later articles by the DeMilles and others.
Julia mentioned the ingredients. I will say that some of those have definitely worked for me, and some have not, and that's okay. And of course, as is mentioned, we each have to do what is best for our family. No one method will work for one family completely - or perhaps for all their children. Which is why my homeschool research never really ends. I'm always learning new ways to present information and encourage my children. Along with TJED I have read some about Charlotte Mason (see www.amblesideonline.org) and liked what I read, and Maria Montessori (read her whole book and liked some, didn't like other parts). I've read Susan Wise Bauer's book "The Well-Trained Mind" and some of her other articles and books. I like her. I use her history curriculum. So I definitely have a mishmash, although I still consider myself to be basically a TJED parent. The big thing about TJED for me, is that is inspired ME to be better educated and a better educator. And that says a lot about the program's value. It's not meant to be followed lock-step (just do what the DeMilles do and you'll be fine - not!!!), it's not meant to be an excuse to sit around and read while your children do nothing all day. I think that "done" properly, this is harder than almost anything else because you are teaching your children through exciting/inspiring means, setting an example through your own studies, and working together (that's much harder than sending them out to play while you clean the house). It's a full-time job!!! Definitely not for the lazy. ( I think I got off on that tangent because that is one of the arguments made by the blog author that I disagreed with).
I got the link for the anti-TJEd blog from the LDS Homeschooling in CA yahoo group. But there was a reply to that, so I'm going to post it, too.
I hadn't yet read the anti-TJEd blog when I wrote my previous post about
TJEd.
He writes, "I don't view it as a waste if I can open the eyes of just one
TJEd devotee and prevent them from subjecting their children to this
impoverished pedagogy. I am doing it out of the goodness of my heart. I am
seeing too many relatives & acquaintances spend time and money on this."
I know Oliver DeMille personally, but I do not consider myself to be a
devotee of anyone except the Savior. And I resent the implication that my
children have received an inferior education. My husband and I have six
children, four of whom have graduated from college; the fifth receives his
AA this month, and the youngest is still under my tutelage. Just a couple
of weeks ago all my children were at home, and they began reminiscing about
their homeschooling experiences. The consensus was that it was so much fun
- and that they had read literally thousands of books.
Although I had a credential and had taught professionally, when I began
homeschooling, I felt a great weight of responsibility to understand how
children learn. There was no Internet and few books. I took extension
classes at a nearby university and read a lot. Probably the person who had
the greatest impact up to that time was Jeannette Vos. The second person
was Susan Kovalik.
Under their guidance and on my own, I discovered the same educational
principles outlined in TJEd (line upon line, precept upon precept), as I
homeschooled my own children. I did not read A Thomas Jefferson Education
until 2000; I had filed my first PSA in 1988.
Before that I was a college teacher for 9 years. If my students are to be
believed, I was a great teacher.
What does it mean when you say that so-and-so was a great teacher -- or
recall that that was a great book? What made them great?
It is that there ARE true principles of education -- and agency is one of
them.
I firmly believe that parents have stewardship for their children, and it is
their right to choose the educational model they will use. But that also
places a great responsibility on parents.
I would say that each of us has the responsibility to find out all we can
about the physiology of learning and the nature of education - especially as
it is outlined in the scriptures - even if we are not homeschooling. After
all, parenting is really synonymous with mentoring.
And the point of understanding the concepts of a leadership education (of
which TJEd is but one model) is not so that we can all use the same
terminology, but so that our children will realize their potential, maintain
their freedom, and ultimately fulfill the mission to which their Heavenly
Father called them.
That is not the purpose of the type of education most children receive using
the efficiency model of the public school system. The purpose of that
system is to prepare people for the work force. I want more for my children
and grandchildren.
Ok. I'm done with this!!! Just wanted to toss that out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
