Friday, May 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
