Mon 26 Nov 2007
Don’t forget to get your Charlotte Mason Blog Carnival posts in today!
So you are intrigued by Charlotte Mason but don’t know where to begin!
My own first introduction to Charlotte came through the book For the Children’s Sake
I have heard people say that the Charlotte Mason philosophy is some sort of feel good unschooling approach. I have never quite understood that criticism. I have always felt it is the best and easiest way to give our children a classical education that doesn’t undermine the heart of virtue in the process.
If you read through what Charlotte did in her own schools it is certainly daunting for those of us who came out of the American public school system.
If you begin with very young children it is incredibly simple:
Read aloud the very best stories to your child. Don’t shy away from books that are just a bit over the child’s head. Read fairy tales and classic stories.
Pick an artist and find a few pictures to study. The Internet has made this almost too easy.
Begin listening to classical music.
Take nature walks.
Let your little ones come home and draw what they see.
Make sure your children are outside a lot.
Let your little ones have plenty of time to play after you have read to them.
The very best Charlotte Mason resource online is Ambleside Online. One look at that site and you will stop worrying that CM is some sort of lax program. The advisory board of AO has done a tremendous service in making CM ideas accessible and authentic. I can vouch for the fact that the women on that board are highly intelligent moms who have raised wonderful children. I am not on the board in case I sound a bit duplicitous. Most of these women have blogs. You can find many of them in my Charlotte Mason Links Bar.
AO runs several email lists along with all kinds of supplementary lists. If you need hand-holding use the lists !!
After Susan Macaulay, I would move on to Charlotte herself. You DO have to wade through some Victorian theology and philosophy to read Charlotte and if you are a Reformed Christian you DO have to carefully understand what Charlotte says about children being born persons, neither good nor bad. Nevertheless, she makes a great point. Children are born persons. A CM education is a way for you to respect your children. Respect is a key element in authority. I mean the authority needs to respect the person she is leading. We often concentrate on respecting authority when it is possibly more beneficial for authority to respect.
Here are a few of my favorite CM books. Karen Andreola takes the gentle approach. Her books are highly readable, especially great for those wondering how to incorporate nature study into the day.
Other resources:
Simply Charlotte Mason
I found their planner a bit pricey but the resources on their site are wonderful and if they keep improving the planner, I think they will have a winner.
Penny Gardner An Internet classic.
The 4 Real Learning Forum. Catholic but not exclusive. Very helpful.
Elizabeth Foss. Her site is just lovely. If you are Catholic Elizabeth probably has all sorts of useful stuff for using CM.
Barb’s Comstock site is fabulous.
(Now for my new Advent feature. I hope to name one of my favorite Christmas song arrangements each post. I will start with my all-time favorite #1 Christmas song in my all-time favorite arrangement. Twila Paris and Matthew Ward singing O Holy Night followed by the the Hallelujah Chorus. Several arrangements of O Holy Night make it to my top ten but I can’t imagine this one ever being knocked off its first place slot unless someone can talk Craig Pitman or Matthew Ward into doing Christmas projects. Unfortunately, this is not on iTunes. You have to buy the whole CD It’s The Thought
25 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I thought I’d mention one newer resource we just launched over at Simply Charlotte Mason, which is the SCM Community Forum. It’s a friendly place to discuss CM topics and encourage one another. There are already many moms helping each other and some wonderful discussions taking place (including if the planner is worth it or not.
) Everyone is welcome to stop by and ask questions or join in the discussions.
Comment by Doug Smith (November 26, 2007 @ 11:03 am )
Cindy,
What you’ve said in your post has been something that has caused me to dismiss Charlotte Mason and also not really consider learning more about her approach. It seems to me if her basic premise is that children are neither good nor bad (”blank slate”, Rousseaus’ “noble savage” although I know Mason is anti-Rousseau), then it seems that anything she builds on that premise is going to be flawed. I saw the 15-minute lessons as part of this. Kids get used to what is expected of them. If 15 minutes is expected of them, then 16 minutes is one minute too many. If 30 minutes is expected of them, they can do fine with that. I do believe that there is a limit to what a child can bear, but I think that’s an individual thing (maybe that’s part of your “respect”) I wonder that other people don’t have lazy children like I do. I know and recognize it because I am lazy, too–both physically and mentally. If I’m “respecting” the child by taking the “gentle” approach, I feel that I’m only giving in to those laziness tendencies.
Respect for the child, to me, means that if they struggle, I may not have as high of a goal for them to reach, but they would still work as hard (maybe harder) to reach a lesser goal. I feel that my two children who struggled the most academically are the ones who know how to work the hardest now because they had to work so hard for everything they got when they were younger.
I have an analogy–I may know of someone who I depend on for certain things and yet that person is forgetful and disorganized. Some would just say that that is just the way she is when really maybe what she needs is to develop some coping mechanisms.
I know that some might say that that is part of the Charlotte Mason idea of developing good habits. But where do things cross the line into not being “gentle” but being “demanding” and why is being gentle more respectful? Isn’t demanding more being more respectful of the person they can become by helping them to reach their potential?
Comment by Patti (November 26, 2007 @ 11:21 am )
Patti,
I didn’t mean to imply that I was talking about gentle and respectful in the same breath. It may very well be that you understand CM far better than I do but I have never thought that a CM education wasn’t demanding. It raises the bar rather high and expects the child to thrive. That is what I mean by respecting the child. I think your rigor is exactly that sort of respect. Now that brings us to short lessons. If you read my MT posts you will understand where the short comes in for our family. I read small amounts of many books every day.
I have personally never applied the short lesson concept to all subjects. I haven’t used it at all for math or Latin although I know (online) people who do.
On the other hand, the areas I have been most successful in homeschooling almost all fall under that ‘little drops of water’ category. If I do something little every single day I will over the course of time have done more than if I did a major ordeal once a week.
Anyway, I don’t see the dichotomy.
Comment by Cindy (November 26, 2007 @ 11:58 am )
Doug,
I changed the wording on that critique from a judgment to an opinion. I think you are on to a great idea and I know it is costly to get something off the ground.
Comment by Cindy (November 26, 2007 @ 12:00 pm )
Love when you post on CM..I am still learning and appreciate being pointed to good resources. Thanks
Comment by Roberta (November 26, 2007 @ 2:34 pm )
Patti, CM never implies that children are blank slates. When she says children are neither good nor bad, she is responding to a common misconception of her time about heredity. She wasn’t saying they were born ‘neutral,’ she was saying she did not believe children were born ALL bad, or ALL good- they had capacity for both, just as adults did, regardless of any perceived ‘genetic taint,’ passed on from good or bad parents. Shea’s speaking out against the common belief of bad blood. Children born to thieves were believed to have been born with the innate tendency toward theft. Children born to highly born ‘good’ parents were believed to be born naturally good.
Charlotte didn’t believe any of this.
What she actually said was, “A well-known educationalist has brought heavy charges against us all on the score that we bring up children as ‘children of wrath.’ He probably exaggerates the effect of any such teaching, and the ‘little angel’ theory is fully as mischievous. The fact seems to be that children are like ourselves, not because they have become so, but because they are born so; that is, with tendencies, dispositions, towards good and towards evil, and also with a curious intuitive knowledge as to which is good and which is evil. Here we have the work of education indicated. There are good and evil tendencies in body and mind, heart and soul; and the hope set before us is that we can foster the good so as to attenuate the evil; that is, on condition that we put Education in her true place as the handmaid of Religion.”
What she believes may not be 100 percent in keeping with five point Calvinism, but it is the very opposite of the blank slate theory.
As for short lessons- she does believe in short lessons for beginning students- you keep them just short and *intense* enough that a good deal of ground is covered. The lesson length gradually increased, too. The short lessons were a tool to develop and train the ability to focus all attention on the lesson and not dawdle or daydream- like lifting weights by beginning with smaller, lighter weights.
For my part, the way I found best to apply short lessons in math was to view the ‘lesson’ as separately from the practice. So I kept my talking down to shorter time periods and did not consider the written work part of that time period. Maybe it was cheating, I don’t know.=)
Incidentally, Cindy, AO only actually owns and actively manages two email groups- the AmblesideOnline and the HEO group. They ‘own’ a third, but others read and moderate it. I have it on good authority (:D)that the Advisory cannot keep up with all the other lists that people have started, and in general, the Advisory isn’t even on the other lists. All the individual lists for copywork, individual years, and who knows what else are have a life of their own- a life that most of the ADvisory find confusing and overwhelming.
I am so looking forward to the CM carnival!
Comment by DeputyHeadmistress (November 26, 2007 @ 2:44 pm )
DHM, thank you. That very much clarifies. Which book is that quote from? The problem was that I also got the impression from Susan Schaeffer Macaulay’s book, even though she was obviously a proponent, that she believed CM to be saying that.
Cindy, I think I was contrasting more the “gentle” with the “demanding” rather than “respect” with “demanding”. I was getting the impression that “gentle” and “respect” went together. And I just don’t know what the “gentle” means unless it means that it’s something with lower expectations so that one doesn’t have to be anything but gentle. Or if that should just be the commong demeanor of the teacher–which I have to say, I wouldn’t mind if I were gentle all the time–but see DHM’s recent post on her blog–I’m not. When I’m firm and *really* mean to address a problem, I’m not so gentle anymore. Not saying that’s good, but I just wondering exactly what a definition of gentle is and how it applies to education.
Comment by Patti (November 26, 2007 @ 3:06 pm )
Keep in mind when I talk about what I think CM says, etc., it is from my reading of about 13-15 years ago. I’m actually even guessing at that time frame. Susan Schaeffer Macauley’s book had come out, but the Andreolas weren’t writing about it yet and there weren’t any “companion” books, etc. So I’m telling you about what I remember about what I think I thought then.:-)
I have been intrigued by the posts that were on CM at The Common Room and they have made me think that I’ve misunderstood Charlotte Mason. I did read some of her books, but maybe one needs to read them all to get the overall picture and then read them again to see how the details fit into the overall picture. Also, as Cindy alluded, and from what I know of education history, she wasn’t living at such a great time for us to be looking for wisdom in education circles. (again, from my remembrance, although more recentl reading than my CM reading)
Comment by Patti (November 26, 2007 @ 3:14 pm )
Patti,
I am not set a part as one of the gentle ones either. The only place I used gentle was when referring to Karen Andreola. Karen IS gentle and her books are gentle. They don’t give the whole CM picture but they do a lot to cover the beautiful side of things, the arts, nature study, Shakespeare etc.
It is hard for me to judge SSM in the same light as you are because I was so dreadfully young when I stumbled upon her book and it truly was a lifesaver for me and it was way more demanding than the education that I received.
Rick Saenz and I discussed once how hard it is to recommend a book to someone (even your children) when that book has led you a certain way because you were on a path. They may read the book on an entirely different level and miss what you got out of it. I feel that way about my path to CM which I stumbled upon without any one pointing it out to me. I can’t guarantee that everyone who reads FTCS will need it as much as I did; I am pretty sure they won’t but it was where I began. It has been so many years since I actually read the book myself. I have not been really interested in going back and rereading it since I didn’t want taint what it had already given me. Maybe my 47 year old self would be terribly disappointed in the book. I’m not actually 47 yet
Comment by Cindy (November 26, 2007 @ 3:19 pm )
I do understand what you’re saying, Cindy. I have heard one local woman talk about it being a “gentle” approach and thought that was something CM said about education and not something that people thought about Karen Andreola and her works.
And I know that there have been circumstances in my life where I’ve heard a sermon, read a book, etc. and it seemed a direct answer from God. (I’m pretty sure it is, of course, but it wouldn’t mean as much to someone else!). I’m going to say that I’m going to be a proud 50 year old at the end of next month. You know…you’re supposed to be wiser the older you get. I’d like to be wiser, so if that means getting older, too, then so be it.:-)
Comment by Patti (November 26, 2007 @ 3:28 pm )
I, too, read “For the Children’s Sake” when my nearly 22 year old was an infant. It spoke to me - to encourage me into thinking that the kind of home life I had experienced could be translated into an educational life for my family. It’s been Charlotte Mason all the way for us, and (now with three children) I’ve not regretted it.
I agree with the DHM’s comments regarding CM’s meaning for children being good and evil. I think it refers more to believing that an education like this could also be for what then were considered ‘lower classes.’ CM very much wanted this liberal education for all. That’s one reason I’m so glad AO stays free.
Comment by Donna-Jean (November 26, 2007 @ 3:30 pm )
I have been reading Home Education by Charlotte Mason. I have been learning a great deal and was happy to get it from the horse’s mouth by reading one of her own books. Then I came to a portion of the book which troubles me and, though I’d hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I’m having a hard time getting past it: specifically, her beliefs about Christianity and Biblical interpretation.
Regarding instructing children in the Bible she wrote,
She refers to the story of the fall as clothing to dress fundamental truths but that the story itself need not be literally true. I’m guessing she’d say the same thing about the story of Jonah. And maybe the resurrection?
Do you hold to Ms. Mason’s beliefs in this area? If not, how have you gotten around it? Is it a “non-issue?” Thanks for your help.
Comment by sara (November 26, 2007 @ 3:38 pm )
Oh and I really liked For the Children’s Sake.
Comment by sara (November 26, 2007 @ 3:53 pm )
“For the Children’s Sake” was my first introduction to CM also. I actually checked it out from the public library’s homeschooling section (which was very small and probably not the best place to begin my research into homeschooling…but I’m older and hopefully wiser now
), then someone I knew loaned me Sally Clarkson’s “Educating the Whole-Hearted Child”. That book really cemented the direction I wanted to go and put application to the principles that SSM was referring to. Reading ‘L’Abri’ several years later helped me to understand how Susan’s life and education took shape and gave me more of a glimpse into where she was coming from in FTCS. I actually just began reading ‘L’Abri’ aloud to the boys and we’re enjoying it immensely.
Comment by Lisa W. (November 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm )
Patti, that quote is from volume 6. I always recommend that people start with volume 6 because she wrote it at the end of her long life of thinking and reading on this topic.
Sara, I doubt very much that Miss Mason would have dismissed the Resurrection. She did think that it was possible several parts of the Bible were not literally true, but I don’t remember ever reading anything that would have made me think she doubted the resurrection. C.S. Lewis had some other than orthodox beliefs about the Bible, too. I found his writings on the Psalms to be immensely disappointing.
In a sense, it is a ‘non-issue’ in that I think it matters greatly to them, but does not so much matter directly to me, as I am not putting my faith in either person (or any person) and do not expect that everything I read outside of scripture must be 100 percent accurate.
When I was younger in the homeschooling movement it was popular to say that people would not behave in a manner inconsistent with their worldview, and thus if their basic worldview was flawed, everything proceeding from it would be.
I do agree that ideas have consequences. But everything we think or do actually does proceed naturally from our worldview. I have also learned that people are a mass of contradictions and they do not always follow their beliefs through to their logical conclusions, they do not even always realize where their beliefs lead, and they are quite capable of believing with all their hearts in six mutually exclusive things even before breakfast.
Charlotte Mason was writing at a time when religion and science were in a free-fall, and when it seemed that the best reasoning would indicate the Bible was not literal in many aspects. I do not think she took the right road in that debate in some important specifics (neither, I think did C. S. Lewis, Martin Luther, Calvin….), but I think she had the right idea in some general principles. So I discard the specifics, look at the principles and, as much as it is possible for any one person to examine things carefully, I do that with CM’s writings on a case by case basis.
I really like her overall view of our relationship with God, and I think it is what it should be:
Here’s another quote from volume 6:
“Again, if we wish children to keep clear of all the religious clamours in the air, we must help them to understand what religion is––[What Religion Is, by Bernard Bosanquet, D.C.L.]
“Will religion guarantee me my private and personal happiness? To this on the whole I think we must answer, No; and if we approach it with a view to such happiness, then most certainly and absolutely No.”
Here is a final and emphatic answer to the quasi religious offers which are being clamourously pressed upon hesitating souls. Ease of body is offered to these, relief of mind, reparation of loss, even of the final loss when those they love pass away. We may call upon mediums, converse through table-rappings, be healed by faith,––faith, that is, in the power of a Healer who manipulates us. Sin is not for us, nor sorrow for sin. We may live in continual odious self-complacency, remote from the anxious struggling souls about us, because, forsooth, there is no sin, sorrow, anxiety or pain, if we will that these things shall not be. That is to say, religion will “guarantee me my private and personal happiness,” will make me immune from every distress and misery of life; and this happy immunity is all a matter within the power of my own will; the person that matters in my religion is myself only. The office of religion for me in such a case is to remove all uneasiness, bodily and spiritual, and to float me into a Nirvana of undisturbed self-complacency. But we must answer with Professor Bosanquet, “absolutely NO.” True religion will not do this for me because the final form of the religion that will do these things is idolatry, self-worship, with no intention beyond self.
To go on with our quotation,––
“Well, but if not that then what? We esteem the thing as good and great, but if it simply does nothing for us, how is it to be anything to us? But the answer was the answer to the question and it might be that to a question sounding but slightly different, a very different answer would be returned. We might ask, for instance, ‘does it make my life more worth living?’ And the answer to this might be,––’It is the only thing that makes life worth living at all.’”
In a word, “I want, am made for and must have a God.”
It does not make sense or seem logical to me that a person who say the Bible was not accurate and wasn’t historical could believe this about God, but Charlotte did.
Human beings are not quite the logical creatures we’d like to think we are, I think.
Comment by DeputyHeadmistress (November 26, 2007 @ 4:15 pm )
I am watching those age references as the calendar begins to flip to the next month
Comment by Dana (November 26, 2007 @ 6:02 pm )
Dana,
I am happy to tell you that after doing some basic math I realized I won’t be 47 for another year !! I feel younger already.
Comment by Cindy (November 26, 2007 @ 6:17 pm )
roflol
I guess you expect me to believe that?
hmmmm, maybe I should contact Tim
Comment by Dana (November 26, 2007 @ 7:08 pm )
DHM,
quite capable of believing with all their hearts in six mutually exclusive things even before breakfast
You talking about me?
Yes, I suppose. I have to get over this expecting people, leaders, writers, theologians, teachers to be perfect thing.
Thank you.
Comment by sara (November 26, 2007 @ 7:40 pm )
I am reading George MacDonald right now and I find the same thing with him as we find with CM. I cannot fully assent to all he says but I love his relationship with Christ and it helps me grow spiritually.
We just cannot separate people from the ideas floating around while they lived. Charlotte herself acknowledges this in her writings.
Comment by Cindy (November 26, 2007 @ 7:51 pm )
Could I add the site http://higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.com/? Linda Fay has helped me as she is very organized and simple in her approach yet rigorous and creative. Check her out!
Cindy, the two of you have saved my sanity the past couple of years as I have tried to apply AO in our home. Thank you so much!
Comment by Tarheel mama (November 26, 2007 @ 8:44 pm )
Thanks for this post Cindy. Much appreciated and I have enjoyed reading the comments too!
Comment by Lea Pisarik (November 27, 2007 @ 8:10 am )
I too first stumbled upon Charlotte Mason via
“For the Children’s Sake”. I had checked out every book about homeschool from my library and that was the one that stuck with me!
Since then I have read all of those wonderful books from your listed library.
I think that you can never feel accomplished…
it is a journey all the way with Charlotte.
each step with a little more insight and improvements.
Comment by keri (November 27, 2007 @ 12:39 pm )
Can I just say that if Cindy and DHM were here right now I would HUG them both?
You all have answered so many of these questions masterfully. You are a blessing! 
On Karen Andreola and the “gentle art of learning” - I think Andreola’s books are great introductions to CM, too. However, when loaning them out, I like to clarify that I consider Ms. Andreola’s version of CM to be a kind of “Charlotte Mason Lite”. Her books do not really touch on the challenging nature of Miss Mason’s goals for her students.
Thanks for such a terrific carnival, Cindy!!!
Comment by JacciM (November 27, 2007 @ 4:28 pm )
Awesome post! You have a listing of some great books. I could read Pocketful of Pinecones everyday of the week and never get tired of it. (The only reason I don’t is because I loaned it to someone else who is as addicted as I am and won’t give it back!) Thanks so much for the post and resources.
Leila @ Freedom Academy
Comment by Leila (November 27, 2007 @ 9:01 pm )