There are no breaks from education.

In keeping with AO's idea of "terms," I try to set up our year so that we break for a month during Advent, a month during Lent, and a month for Summer. Breaks are hard on me... mostly because my kids need some kind of routine. By the time break rolls around we are usually ready to stop formal schooling for a while and to focus on the things that matter in these seasons, but my biggest challenge is to keep my kids from going squirrely.... they just seem to thrive on routine.

Yesterday, I resolved to watch them closely to see what kinds of things I could have them focus on that weren't "academic," persay, but involved in their overall character building-- things like good habits. I was surprised by what I saw.

Even though we are "on Advent break" from schooling, and although I have placed zero academic pressure on them during this season, here are just a few things I noticed that the children did either on their own or by asking me to help them.

My oldest (7): Read Act I of Shakespeare's Macbeth with a commentary, wrote a page in her journal about it, recited last month's memory work in science, poetry, math, latin, and catechism, made up math word problems, sang a memorized hymn, named two birds she saw in our yard accurately and looked up a new one, and studied for, took, and passed a classical latin pronunciation exam. With absolutely no pushing from me other than encouragement to "finish what she had started doing" before she moved on. (habits training)

My second oldest (6): Read and copied the names of candy bars from Willy Wonka, regularly spoke to me in French, looked up two science questions about the nature of matter, did math word problems my oldest made up for him, and narrated a Bible story he had just read to me perfectly.

My second youngest (4): Begged to learn Latin, traced and copied letters and correctly pronounced them, identified the letters in her name in various places throughout the house, spoke French to me, correctly identified a bird in the backyard, told me a story she invented that was quite good, used vocabulary that shocked even me, and and used proper math and logic to get out of eating her lentils.

My youngest (1.5): Spoke French and English to me, sometimes in full sentences. Demonstrated an uncanny awareness of her surroundings. Counted to three on her fingers.(!) Laughed hysterically at a line from Macbeth when it was read to her, and then repeated it over and over again. ("By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes...")

My only conclusion can be this: "Education is a discipline, an atmosphere, and a life."
I never cease to be amazed at the depth of wisdom in Charlotte Mason.
If you keep this maxim in mind as you build family culture, not only does education become a lifestyle but your children grow to delight in learning... to thrive in, and create for themselves, an environment that challenges them to learn more and to think better.

On books, joy, and things

There is something I hear almost every day while skipping through Charlotte Mason blogs, groups, and forums that I find troublesome. I want to address it, but since I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, this is only an attempt at grasping at the description of a premonition with words I'm not sure will do it justice.
Charlotte Mason's methods, and homeschooling in general are gaining in popularity. And I admit that popularity scares me a little bit, for many reasons I won't bother with here.
Of the families I have encountered who follow CM's ideas, I find there are two camps of extremes that many people seem to fall into. The first, are those who call their schools CM because they use living books, go outside,  and finish by noon, but who don't bother to look at the other things which make up a CM education. The second are those self proclaimed "purists" who reject all forms of education and curriculum which stem from anything that wasn't explicitly described/mentioned/theorized about by Miss Mason herself in her own writings, to include questioning forms of classical methodology on the basis of a lack of commentary regarding said forms.  The truth, I suspect, like all things, lies somewhere in the middle.

I love Charlotte Mason's ideas, but I am not Charlotte Mason. Her ideas were her own, but came from her interactions with other idea-havers, I take those and try to push them to new places, following the same trail that has been forged, and sometimes glancing off the trail. Looking behind me. Enjoying the scenery. And that's OK.  My identity is secure, But I get the feeling that, while navigating the homeschool world, many women don't seem to have that same security of identity, and seem to be seeking after something more than just a means to provide their children with a delightful, complete Classical education. Women want leadership and practical help, and Miss Mason certainly offers that in a most marvelous manner, with wisdom and patience and great care. But I get the feeling, every so often, that people just "hear about Charlotte Mason" while researching, think to themselves, "I want that!" and then go about trying to purchase what they need to make it happen. They don't understand  that receiving a classical education is a paradigm shift, a thing that will literally require that the whole family get on board and start living what they claim to believe as true, important, and necessary. Charlotte Mason is not a style of curriculum. It's a lifestyle change.

Now, you've heard me blog about classical education, and you've heard me blog about catholic education. You obviously come here a lot to read about a Charlotte Mason education. And recently, I tried to put to rest the idea that these educational theories were at odds one with the other. The pursuit of truth and beauty is not UNIQUE to a CM education, although CM does it particularly well. At the same time, without the ability to *reason* no student will arrive at truth or beauty. The value of the Classical / Catholic education, on which CM's ideas are based, is that it formally teaches this skill. But the value of that lesson is only as meritorious as the teacher who has instilled in his student the love of learning, the reason for needing reason, and the purpose of life-- Catechesis.

CM students who have parents that don't get this are bound to have problems. The students will form in themselves an ability to discern and connect with the true and beautiful that is handed to them, but they will be lacking the ability to sort through ideas themselves and come to their own conclusions.... and to join in the Grand Conversation in a way that adds to the conversation and doesn't just take away from it.

CM's techniques can help all children to appreciate truth, beauty and goodness, but it takes the ability to think like a philosopher.... to think and parse and organize...... to be someone who can attack the status quo. She knew this! And she advocated the teaching of logic, only in her time she felt that it was adequate to surround the child with good books, and then to allow him to absorb critical thinking skills from his interactions with the authors. Her reasons for doing this were two-fold.

First, students raised using her methods had been taught to carefully notice, mentally organize, categorize, and express information as it came from the very beginning of their education. They had little need of formal teaching in doing so by the time they were older because this was how they had been trained. Critical thinking was a habit. Hard mental work was a habit.
Second, her students had read ONLY the best books. And these books had become as friends to them, mentors and guides. Many of the classical educators of her day were uninterested in the persons they were teaching.... only enamored with the method of classical education. Because of that, they failed to inspire a desire for truth and a love of knowledge. This is huge, because it was through the reading of the world's greatest authors, often in the original languages,  and through knowledge of the scriptures, combined with the respect of the teachers towards the children on the journey that children grew to become critical thinkers.... students who desired to know more, and who were able to work with the information they were given in such a way as to organize it and come to logical conclusions. The Bible itself helps us to understand this:  

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5)

It does not say that God will do the work here. It says that WE will do the mental work.
CM parents who don't understand this will be raising lovely people who are self-motivators, hard workers, and beautiful citizens. But they won't be world-changers. They will still be followers.

Education doesn't happen by osmosis. The child himself must absorb and fiddle with and-- not regurgitate--- but process information. Recently, on facebook, I saw that an article written by a pope-hating schismatic condemning the Church-approved Divine Mercy devotion had begun making the rounds. I was distraught to find that in a group of homeschooling Catholic mothers, a woman posted the article. What was even more disturbing was to find that more than 2/3 of the comments from the beginning were from women who read the article and responded to it in this way:
"Oh my! I had no idea! I will stop saying the Divine Mercy Chaplet at once!"
None of them thought. Not logically. They were lemmings. Never mind that the very pope who leads their Church had handed out copies of the Divine Mercy prayers to visitors at his audience that week and exhorted them to pray it. Never mind that the Divine Mercy prayers are approved by the Church, and for a logical reason. No, they were satisfied to completely give it up-- indeed, to call it EVIL-- because they had read a convincing-sounding argument on the internet that said so. My mind was boggled.

In our day, things are much more complex than they were in Victorian England. Technology and the advent of the information age has made "knowledge" cheap and easy to obtain. But somehow people are more stupid now than they were when there were no smartphones to google questions. Their attention spans and ability to discern the underlying truths or lies of what they read are practically non-existent. It is maddening for the student of logic to walk through the clamoring earth, turning his ear to the left or to the right because illogical, false, and ridiculous conclusions are being formed in every direction and shouted from every hilltop.  Literally maddening. I'll get to that in a minute.

Suffice to say that logic is critical. Thinking is critical. Habits are critical.
The reason CM succeeds particularly well at speaking to my generation is because she lays out a map for the journey of the home educating parent. Not only does she vision-cast, but she gives practical advice. Not only does she theorize but she comes alongside her reader an expounds upon her theories. Her books are a compass and scale, her words a trail of delight through the dangerous and often confusing world of education.

Which brings me to my four-fold issue.
Daily, I come across women who, motivated by the promised joy that a CM education brings, attempt to "purchase" that joy-- or worse, steal it!-- without any hard work. And those who do have completely missed the memo.
Miss Mason's methods work because:

Life should be simple.
Work should be hard.
Prayer should be constant.
Only the greatest minds should be our friends and teachers. (Good books)

Life should be simple.
No, I'm not suggesting you buy a farm, although I'm quite sure that doing so would benefit every one of us. I am suggesting that a true classical, and therefore Charlotte Mason education requires a simple life. Gone are the excessive "extras" of modern life and back are the basics: good time management. attention to detail. remembering what's important. getting rid of stuff, clutter, and baggage. finding work that is meaningful. making do with what you have. Not taking on more than you can handle. Finishing what you start.
In following this idea, CM's student's are done early because we don't have endless piles of curriculum and things to sort through and accomplish each day. We don't switch it up every two weeks or every few months or even every year. We stick with ideas, and ride them through to the end.

Work should be hard.
A simple life is best lived in hard work. This is why people yearn for the family farm. We have work, we do it, and we are satisfied. This goes for mental work too, and Charlotte's students know this. We don't reward or punish the children as they work. We allow natural consequences and the satisfaction of a job well done. This builds confidence and.... surprise... joy.
Today people are lazy and obsessed with entertainment over work, chocolate and wine over sacrifice, naps and jammies over clean homes and diligence. This is not the way of the saints, and it certainly is no the way of joy! Is it any surprise that so many people in our world are medicated for depression?? Our minds AND our bodies are rotting away. Perhaps worse is the rotting of our minds, as mental laziness creates a seat for stupidity. A disciplined mind, no matter how simple, will always be superior.
In Chapter III of Ourselves, Charlotte Mason lays out quite clearly the enemies if the intellect: Sloth, poor intellectual habits, inability to stay in one field of thought, and an inability to connect ideas because of a lack of "well-rounded" knowledge. We all know that hard, physical work is good for our children, and even for ourselves. But let us never forget that hard mental work is the cornerstone of a truly CM education.

Prayer should be constant.
The elements of a simple life are perhaps best laid out in the monastic rules of Catholic religious life. I hear the Rule of St Benedict is excellent at demonstrating this, but I'm not as familiar with it as I should be. I live by a version of the Rule of St Albert of Jerusalem, who wrote it for the Carmelites.
Regardless, most of the monastic rules are perfect examples of a simple life lived, based on this principle: work, and pray. (You may have heard Catholics say: "Ora et labora!") I would add.... "detach," but this is not something that lay people can do in the same way that monastics do it. That being said, I assure you we can come closer to what they do than what we are doing now. Wink, wink. A life of prayer starts with a habit Charlotte Mason calls "thought of God," and which Catholics recognize as a contemplative life, one in which our awareness of God's presence brings about a change of heart and attitude. Prayer is sustaining, and food for our souls.... a way to acknowledge this "thought of God." And so we pray. Basing our schedules and routines off of prayer times rather than eating or playing times is a great way to discipline the mind and a practice of those who historically have achieved the greatest ability to think clearly.

And good books should be teachers.
I add this point as a fourth and most important point because it was so dear to Charlotte herself. Miss Mason's ideas about books should be read by each individual educator. Her methods can not be followed casually with any measure of success, as evidenced by the scores of unschooling "CM" educators busily fluttering around the internet desperate for new curriculum or new CM ideas "that work for them." 
We learn by imitation. I see my children do it every single day. If we do not give them the Great Minds, the Masters to imitate, who will they imitate? Would you rather your daughters imitate Penelope or Amelia Bedelia? Saint Joan of Arc or Judy Blume's Margaret? Would you rather your sons imitate King Arthur and Caractacus, or Harry Potter?
We who have heard Charlotte's thoughts on literature and who have smiled and agreed, what business do we have putting twaddle in the hands of our children? Why read a compilation created by a disordered thinker over a whole work written by a master? (Omnibus and Story of the World, I'm looking at you!) Discovering twaddle is tricky in a world full of books, but the best guideline I can give, and one I use in my own home, is this:
1. Does the book capture the interest of the adult as much as of the child and it is written in language that will not only delight, but also teach and instruct the reader(s)?
2. Does the book require that even the adult concentrate to extract it's full meaning?
3. I might even add an additional guideline: Is the book the original source of the ideas it conveys, or does it expound upon an original idea? And if it expounds upon that idea, does it do so in a logical way or is it building an illogical idea on top of the mental work of others?
And if you are following the other guidelines-- committed to a life of prayer, hard work, and simple living--- will you really have TIME to read twaddle, even "not quite" twaddle? Not a chance.
I was recently involved in a discussion between a group of protestant women and a group of Catholic women regarding the nature of the Church. It was a very upsetting conversation to me on many levels, but mostly because these are women who I have very much fond affection for. We had both read the Bible. They were sure of their position because of how they were reading the Bible, but I was certain they were reading the Bible incorrectly. I attempted to prove it with good books... by quoting the earliest recorded Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justyn Martyr. They remained unconvinced, I'm quite sure, because they couldn't even fathom the paradigm shift required in their thinking skills.... they had been taught one way: to follow rabbit trails of ideas, and I was trying to teach them TO THINK (to follow one logical trail of ideas) because if I could prove that Christians believed a certain thing HISTORICALLY, then surely they had to acknowledge that things had changed somewhere along the way.
These are "well-read" women, but they couldn't think because all their lives they had been reading books that were less than perfect, so that when they finally found themselves faced with logic, they couldn't recognize it and in fact, vehemently rejected it in favor of a fallacy they had repeated and repeated and repeated to themselves time and again by reading books which were good, captivating, interesting, etc..... but which weren't THE BEST BOOKS. They were used to reading books in the Christian Living section of the Bookstore. I was trying to point them towards the Church Fathers, original sources of ideas in their original form. Whole different animal. (It was reading the Church Fathers that led me to Catholicism, of course! I took them as my RIGHTFUL teachers.... and so should we all, not because I did but because they have the authority and place in history to teach us the BEST and TRUEST living ideas from which have sprung all other ideas about faith and Christianity!)

It seems like every day I read a new post by a homeschooling mother looking for ways to purchase.... or steal..... a CM education for their children, to secure joy without being willing to actually do the work of reading CM for herself and then applying it, keeping these four principles in mind. And yet these four principles are what constitute the bulk of a classical liberal arts education. These four things--- simplicity, hard work, prayer, and good books/teachers--- will lead to good thinking, and therefore to truth and beauty and the transformation of the world. I have even met people who felt satisfied and accomplished giving their children a list of "living books" to read each week and who all but ignored the foundations of good thinking--- grammar and arithmetic and logic! DESPITE Charlotte's own ideas, which I'm quite sure they never read for themselves.

So let me say it again, and I say it as much to myself as to anyone who might be reading:
You cannot purchase a CM education in a box. You cannot teach the classical liberal arts without setting up a culture of simplicity and order, hard work, prayer, and submission. You cannot be less than perfect, and then expect perfection. You cannot have children who love the outdoors, and not go outside yourself. You cannot have children who are kind, and not be kind. You cannot have children who are wise, and not seek after wisdom yourself. And you cannot be a Saint unless you seek to "be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) God will help you.

Follow the advice of St Josemaria Escriva who said: "Work, and things will change! You will yield more fruit, and it will be sweeter than before."

"Classical" educators, in my mind, who enroll their children in sing-songy memory work co-ops in the hopes of creating something they refuse to be themselves will not succeed. Charlotte Mason educators, in my mind, who allow their children to read twaddle disguised as literature, and to lounge around reading and playing all day rather than taking their studies and their responsibilities seriously, will not succeed. This is NOT a statement against any particular program or book or series, but rather against sloth, laziness, and intellectual suicide.

I leave you with these brilliant words, even more important in our day:

"Nothing is more common in an age like this, when books abound, than to fancy that the gratification of a love of reading is real study....there are many, who certainly have a taste for reading, but in whom it is little more than the result of mental restlessness and curiosity. Such minds cannot fix their gaze on one object for two seconds together; the very impulse which leads them to read at all, leads them to read on, and never to stay or hang over any one idea. The pleasurable excitement of reading what is new is their motive principle; and the imagination that they are doing something, and the boyish vanity which accompanies it, are their reward. Such youths often profess to like poetry, or to like history or biography; they are fond of lectures on certain of the physical sciences; or they may possibly have a real and true taste for natural history or other cognate subjects;—and so far they may be regarded with satisfaction; but on the other hand they profess that they do not like logic, they do not like algebra, they have no taste for mathematics; which only means that they do not like application, they do not like attention, they shrink from the effort and labour of thinking, and the process of true intellectual gymnastics. The consequence will be that, when they grow up, they may, if it so happen, be agreeable in conversation, they may be well informed in this or that department of knowledge, they may be what is called "literary"; but they will have no consistency, steadiness, or perseverance; they will not be able to make a telling speech, or to write a good letter, or to fling in debate a smart antagonist, unless so far as, now and then, mother-wit supplies a sudden capacity, which cannot be ordinarily counted on. They cannot state an argument or a question, or take a clear survey of a whole transaction, or give sensible and appropriate advice under difficulties, or do any of those things which inspire confidence and gain influence, which raise a man in life, and make him useful to his religion or his country."

Cardinal John Henry Newmann
On the Idea of a University

Setting the Classical Question to rest once and for all (maybe)

I've been doing a ton of thinking about the differences and similarities between a typical Charlotte Mason education and a typical Classical education in a practical (not theoretical) sense. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think a Charlotte Mason education was superior. But I find it important to note that Charlotte's vision was achievable within the framework of the classical education.... because though what I received was basically a Charlotte Mason education, my parents were classical educators, and had never heard of Charlotte Mason. In other words; they have the same goal, use many of the same methods (albeit slightly differently), and if the parents are themselves thinking people, they will probably come to the same conclusions.

Children have different personalities, evident almost right away in their upbringing. I have a son who could stand in a corner all day but never learn his lesson, but take away something that he cares about and he straightens right up. I have a daughter who is very logical for her young age, and needs parents who constantly uphold the standard without slipping. I have another daughter who reacts with pain and horror when she is disciplined by an impatient parent, but who tries her best to do what she ought right away when we remain calm and affectionate. I could go on. Though these children are different, all of  them are helped by Charlotte's ideas, because she taught the respect of children as persons. This idea is a given to Catholics, who are taught from the beginning to respect the human dignity of children, but may easily be missed by people in other faith traditions or who have no religious background at all.

I have many friends who are fence - sitters, drawn to Charlotte's ideas but resolutely remaining on the classical side of the question for many reasons.  For many Catholics, this happens out of fear. We know and understand that a classical education is our heritage, and the pursuit of the liberal arts our sacred duty as human beings. We fear that Charlotte Mason, not being quite fully Catholic, can't understand the nuances of a truly Catholic education. I think that's a little silly, although I can appreciate the concern. Now, if Charlotte was good enough for GK Chesterton, she was good enough for me, but maybe I don't know anything. (One day I will blog about CM compared to the Jesuit educational model, and that of Don Bosco.... it's a fascinating topic that deserves to be explored, since each of these were so similar!)

For others it happens out of pride or anxiety. In the early years, CM is certainly more "gentle," with children, and though they catch up quickly and in some ways excel if pitted against their classically-educated peers, it can be disconcerting seeing children in a classical school spouting off long lists of president's names or timeline dates they have memorized when our own children aren't.

But in my experience, most people reject CM once they hear about it and stick to the modern classical method (a paradox!) because CM is just too complicated... there are no ready-made curricula that actually provide Charlotte's methods, and those that do are quickly abandoned as we read her work ourselves and realize the principle of integration.

We have to read her ourselves, think for ourselves how we are going to do it, and implement it ourselves. We (the educators) have to be willing to change, to grow, and what's more amazing-- to discipline ourselves in surrender to this great ideal: the education of our children. CM is not just for kids, it's for parents, too.

Those of us fortunate enough to have CM schools in the area, and there are a few, still have to learn her methods so we can remain consistent with their education at home. In a CM education, the parent takes full responsibility for the student's education, and so does the student, as he grows in awareness. CM is self-education, if nothing else. In fact, if I had to pick just one major difference, that would be it: Charlotte Mason taught children to educate themselves in the liberal arts, learning from the original great thinkers. The Classical method teaches the liberal arts TO children. Many classically educated children go on to be great thinkers themselves, make no mistake about it. But a hunger for knowledge--- that's a sign of a CM education. It's a given that Charlotte Mason had one goal: that children love to learn.

Most of us CM educators agree that Charlotte Mason provided a "type" of classical education to children... she certainly taught them the liberal arts. In my case, I was given what amounts to a CM education growing up.... and certainly I am full of ideas and connections between ideas. In fact, connections between ideas are what I tend to call "God moments" when lightbulbs go off in my brain, and you usually hear all about them right here, as you well know.
I certainly can say I have a passion for learning.

I have a vast knowledge of names and faces and friends throughout history and out in the wild. I am familiar with most of the great works and an excellent writer myself. And I've even studied philosophy-- I majored in it in France. Philosophy: the ability to think and reason,  as you know, is the end-all, be-all of a Classical education. Knowledge of God in a Christian education.... combine the two and you have a Classical, Catholic education.... one which many protestants are attempting to reproduce in some ways through programs like Classical Conversations. (Other well known protestant curriculum providers, like Heart of Wisdom (ironic name much?), are working hard in the homeschool world to eradicate any classical/Greek influence in their children's education, choosing to provide a purely "spiritual, Hebrew" education. Watch me LOL.... but that's another blog for another day.) When I look at my own education, I see that I was given a catholic, classical education in every sense of the word: a grounding in the seven liberal arts with a CM twist: my parents were respecters of persons. I have a hunger for learning, and my mind makes connections between living ideas. Success, right?

But even with all that under my belt, one thing I can NOT do is understand philosophy in the terms used by the great minds. Sometimes, I can understand it, but not reproduce it or add to it. When I read the great books, I often feel like an outsider looking in. Though I can comprehend the ideas therein, I cannot add to them anything constructive, just absorb in awe and wonder.

Now this may be because I am not that bright, but I have come to believe that this is also because my education in grammar, arithmetic, logic, philosophy and rhetoric was not formal in the sense of a course in which I learned to use language or terms a certain way, and then build upon that knowledge in any kind of a framework (what the French call "encadrement.")

Rather, my understanding of arithmetic, logic, philosophy, grammar, etc. comes from a large, feast-like banquet in which I picked and chose what was interesting to me and connected to other ideas I was learning about. I lacked structure, and the lack of structure is NOT an impediment to me as a wife, mother, and journalist. However, I have noticed that my husband is a more clear, less muddled thinker than myself. And he himself was given a FORMAL education in logic, for example, which later helped him to not just *understand* philosophy, but participate in the great philosophical dialogue in a way that I never can without that same formal dialogue.

Let me give you an example:

I can read Peter Kreeft, find it moving, apply it to my life, and make something beautiful come to life with what I've learned. I can even teach a class on Peter Kreeft's ideas to others, or share what I've learned through him in a small group setting.

My husband, however, can hold his own in a debate with Peter Kreeft. He might be invited to lecture alongside him one day. He is capable of holding a debate or conversation with him, and from time to time, point out a logical flaw in an argument he might make. (not that this has ever happened, nor would it.... just giving an example of how the end-product of our different educations might look.)

So what does that matter in a practical sense for those of us who aren't aspiring to be debaters?

Well, in my house, for example, the husband leads and the wife and children follow. (Most of the time, haha.) Imagine how that looks... my husband, with his trained eye for the logical/ reasonable, etc. is VERY qualified to lead us. He hears a problem and immediately breaks it down into parts, analyzes each part, sees how it fits into the whole, and repositions the problem parts so that he finds a reasonable solution. (I liken this to doing a complex math problem or diagramming a complicated sentence.)

Me? I hear a problem and instinctually sense right or wrong responses, feeling my way through it, and perhaps even using experience or evidence to guide me. I can point out where the bits are that need reworking. I can even come up with solutions that are viable. But I often miss the "bigger picture" or "long term" application, and nearly make very big mistakes because of it!

Now, of course, this takes natural ability. But I do believe that our educations come into play here, and I keep that in mind when planning out my children's educations. In fact, I read a FASCINATING article the other day about women's educations in the middle ages, that demonstrated exactly why and how women were educated classically...
For tasks like running a nation, the ability to think, debate, reach for the stars, etc. is critical. For tasks like running a household, other abilities come into play. Now, I probably would have had better luck with some of these issues-- with learning logic, for example--  had I been better at follow-through as a child.... with finishing what I start. But CM addresses that, and had my parents been followers of her method, they would have made sure to help me follow through until this stuff was as natural to me as breathing. My point, though, is that I am OK in my own role without it.

What do our kids need? Each of them is different. Each of them demonstrates a propensity for certain types of thinking. My eldest is a philosopher, already. My second child an engineer. My third an artist. My fourth? We will see. Will all of them need to learn formal logic and formal rhetoric? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It will take discernment, to see which ones are called to "higher" tasks, and which ones are called to ordinary-- although no less important-- tasks.

Many of us younger CM educators frequently experience sidetracks into the realm of the Classical World as if it were foreign territory.... interesting and exciting, but also different and slightly fuzzy and unclear. And it is. In the younger years, CM children seem to have a finger in every pie, but Classical children seem to be adept at things that make us insecure and awe-struck.... we watch them spewing off long lines of memorized work and think.... "OUCH!! My kids are NOT doing that!! I must be way behind!"

To understand what a classical education actually IS, I recommend first looking at what it is NOT. It is not what we imagine when we think of students in classrooms today, filling out lists of spelling words and math terms, taking home worksheets, and other such nonsense. It is not workbooks, or textbooks, or fact-sheets, or sing-songy memory work.

William Michael, director of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy, wrote an excellent article about the Dorothy Sayers phenomenon here. While I do believe Mr. Michael's point is a good one, the reality is that practically speaking, this means not very much. Dorothy Sayers' ideas about stages really just facilitate the classical education for children. In the past, an education was begun at 6 and ended when it ended.... with the study of what was true, right, good, and beautiful from throughout history.

Insofar as the language arts go,the emphasis on grammar, latin, etc. is really about ordered thinking. Learning practical and classical arithmetic helps us to think clearly.

In practical terms, most classical schools tend to follow a similar sort of path as CM students.
"The Well Trained Mind," was the first how-to-homeschool book that I read, and re-reading it once I had a grasp of Charlotte Mason's methods reminded me of why I liked it in the first place. Practically speaking, the curriculum looks very similar and the ideas are very close. WTM recommended more textbooks and didn't have the same standards for living books that were 100% twaddle-free, but ultimately, school "looks" sort of the same. The notebooks used in WTM were not used in a CM education (more on notebooks in this blog soon!) There was more writing at an early age in WTM. In most classical schools, the teacher teaches and the students listen... something that is not happening in a CM education, where the teacher facilitates and the student and book interact. Charlotte Mason's method is self-education. WTM and other classical methods make heavier use of the teachers' knowledge (or in the case of homeschool, the curriculum writer's) knowledge.

Both do narration, copywork, and dictation. Both read, hopefully mostly from living books. Both emphasize grammar and latin, arts and sciences.
In a practical sense, the differences are so subtle.... subtle enough to be almost imperceptible. But they are important distinctions, and make up a truly "Charlotte Mason" education.

What are these differences?

In the younger years, grades 4-6 in a modern classical education, for example (or when they are ready, in a truly classical education, begun whenever and building upon itself) a formal composition course is given in three stages, commonly called the "fable stage," the "narrative stage," and the "chreia or maxim stage." Charlotte Mason, on the other hand, did not do ANY formal instruction in composition, but rather used written narration (built upon a foundation of oral narration experience in the younger years) and excellent copywork/dictation , along with grammar (formally begun in grade four, but taught throughout in gentle language lessons.) Charlotte's students can use living books here.... such as Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style," or the classic work "On Writing Well."
Similarly, we can teach a formal grammar course for one or two years, but then leave it to living books such as "The Transitive Vampire" alongside some formal recitation of the rules of grammar.
A PhD thesis I recently read used a preliminary study to demonstrate that a Charlotte Mason education with no formal composition instruction at all provided a more than adequate skill in composition. I myself am a writer, having never received formal composition lessons in the classical manner. I like to think that I'm a good one. ;)
My thought for the fence-sitters here is that should you realize when your child reaches this level that s/he has not had adequate narration experience, then you might consider a formal composition course. Should your child already be a strong writer, as outlined in Charlotte's works, then feel free to skip this step and to trust her.

Outside of this, there are very few differences between a CM and Classical education in these stages other than the approach to memory work (which I will discuss momentarily.)

The only other practical consideration is that in a traditional classical school, in grades 7-12 traditional logic, material logic, and rhetoric are taught. Again, these are not formally taught in a CM education, but rather acquired through reading the great thinkers. Thus Ambleside students, for example, read Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book" for logic, and read some of the best works of apologetics out there. This method is perfectly suitable, but again it is worth noting that should a particular student demonstrate a propensity for debate or especially a need for improvement in communication, debate, or critical thinking skills, then certainly a formal logic course could be taught, and these are readily available to homeschooling families. However, the necessary use of these formal courses is another story. Not every child will need one, and if Charlotte's methods are adhered to closely, especially from the beginning, I believe the need for these courses will show itself to be greatly reduced, if not eliminated. It possible to teach ordered thinking and communicating using the great books alone.

Especially should you sense that your student has a particular call to leadership, careful consideration of the child's ability in these areas (communication, critical thinking, debate) should be given. But of course, the whole goal of a classical education and of the teaching of the liberal arts is that all students be ready and able communicators, thinkers, and debators. So there you have it, the only differences in practical terms are the endless hours spent in the formal teaching in textbook or teacher-to-student format of the subjects of composition, logic, and rhetoric, much of which should be evaluated as the child grows. The main goal, in a CM education, is for the teacher to get out of the way... and that should be considered when one considers adding a formal course in any of these subjects.

Now there is an other area which deserves some thought, and that is the area of memory work. Charlotte's students recited, of this we are sure. The emphasis in recitation was not at all on facts, dates, etc but on what was true, beautiful and real.
To this end, memory work should consist mostly of poetry and scripture, passages from great speeches, and be done in such a way as to be virtually painless-- Charlotte describes a method of memorization "by accident" in which the child is exposed to the poem each day at varied times and during other events (hair brushing, eating, etc) and thus the poem is learned painlessly.  I know this is how I have memorized things in the past, poems that still stay with me!
Charlotte's students also recited those necessary facts they must know in the areas of math, grammar, catechism, etc. This was undoubtedly in question-and-answer format and was perfectly necessary, but kept short-- five minutes before or after class, unlike in the modern classical method where the bulk of the class is spent in recitation / memorization "work."

One thing is certain: Charlotte's students would not have learned their memory work with daily exposure to "fun" sing-songy versions of facts, which differs greatly from the modern classical method employed in courses like classical conversations. That being said, if the child enjoys this exposure,  I personally don't see any harm in teaching memory work in this way.... particularly if their friends or siblings are also doing it as it gives them a sense of big-ness / importance to be able to do what they see their siblings or friends doing.

One last thing to consider for me has been in the methods of evaluation, namely tests and records of work accomplished. For the first few years of my children's schooling, despite having rabidly doused myself in Charlotte's ideas from morning til night, I still felt compelled to keep binders full of *proof* that my children were learning. I can't say if this concept came to me naturally or through my reading of The Well-Trained Mind, but my children had notebooks we filled with evidence that they had worked. They enjoy going through these notebooks, but I noticed they enjoy most looking at copywork, narrations, maps, and art work they have designed. I've never seen them stop on pages of math problems, worksheets, or word lists that weren't created by themselves. As a result, I've stopped wasting a lot of unnecessary time on record keeping. For example, almost all of our math work is done orally right now. I write down our narration to encourage them to narrate better, but not when we narrate in a group. Our grammar is done mostly orally as well.

I have plans to write a different blog post about notebooking in a CM education, so this clearly isn't the place, but I did want to give an example of the difference here between a Classical concept of examination and a CM concept of examination.

Charlotte's student's exams consisted of telling back something they had learned throughout the term, something very different from the multiple choice, formal essays etc. of the Classical and traditional methods. There were no comprehension questions, no three paragraph responses, no diagrams.... just an oral or written explanation to the teacher of the subjects studied and what knowledge was acquired. A conversation.

Looking back at some of the teaching techniques the two methods have in common is important. A sample copybook employed in the classical method often contained a line or quote from a poem, for example, at the top of the page. Below, on each line, the student would labor to re-create the phrase over and over in his or her "best writing." I did this as an adult in the Spencerian Script copybook series from Mott Media and found it tremendously boring after the first line.... despite the fact that I thoroughly enjoy penmanship.

Charlotte's students had copybooks which were quite different-- each line was a copied piece of literature, scripture, or a poem from the child's own reading which s/he had found delightful. The lines were copied using the habit of perfect execution (ie. perfectly from the beginning) and were not repeated over and over, so that when one went back to look at the copybook it became a commonplace book... a carefully kept journalistic record of the child's mind and a map of the world of ideas s/he was building. What a difference! One copybook might be seen as building the habit of perfection for perfection's sake... the other for the sake of later delight and enjoyment... and even further reflection. Powerful! This is the stuff I love about Charlotte Mason, and the reason she has my heart.

Rest assured that I will have plenty more to say on the subject, but for now I feel confident that there is enough evidence in these few paragraphs to show that a Charlotte Mason education is indeed a classical education, and more. At the same time, it is perfectly possible to provide a traditional Classical education with the end result being children who grow into self-educating adults who love to learn if we are careful to adhere to some of Charlotte's ideas about parents and children... ideas which are a part of our heritage of ideas should we be blessed enough to be Catholic.  I can say I was given a Charlotte Mason education despite my parents having never heard of Charlotte Mason because my parents were classical educators, respecters of their children as persons, outdoorsmen, and lovers of ideas. They were thinking people.

There is truly no need to pit the two against each other or to bounce, conflicted,  from one to the other in the hopes of creating "thinkers," but just as in all things, an actual, careful study of Charlotte's ideas in her own words and of the history of education as a whole is the best way to understand her methods and the reasons why she did what she did. Producing children who love to learn, and giving them a classical education, ultimately requires that parents provide what Charlotte called "a thinking love." This thinking love .... we owe it to our children.

Happy educating!

A simplified home school.... getting settled.

Simple is better. 

It's a lesson found in every aspect of the homemaker's life... from diapering to cooking, from cleaning to raising kids, from laundry to homeschooling.... simple is better.
It's something I always inherently knew, but that I didn't really have a clue how to implement until I began receiving practical advice, first as a protestant from Vision Forum ministries, and then as a Catholic from the families who create and use the Classical Liberal Arts Academy to educate their children.

We have really enjoyed our CLAA experience so far. However, recently,  my family had to stop using CLAA's petty school due to financial challenges. This bothered me because it was the only "pre-packaged curriculum" we would ever consider paying for. We truly enjoyed it, and I was re-assured by the simplicity of the whole thing... not to mention that our home life was exponentially more organized and better because of it.

I have since scrounged together a pretty good working curriculum to finish off the year, which I'm thankful for. I was anxious about having to stop and start over mid-year, but the transition has been good for us and easier than I thought it would be.

I've also been plotting and planning the year ahead with a whole new view, having now experienced the CLAA from the inside and seen the way it works on a practical level.

On the one hand , we want to prepare our kids for the challenges of the CLAA Academy in later years when they are mentally ready and we can afford it. We like the program very much and look forward to that day, should it come. If it doesn't, I feel like we have a "vision" for what will happen-- and it's a good one too. Though we love CLAA, we acknowledge that it just isn't a fit for some people. However, for us, it's a good fit and a great learning process for students AND teachers.

On the other hand, we are enjoying very much the ability to slow down and use our beloved Charlotte Mason ideas about early education, an approach which is gentle and intentional with a little less emphasis on pushing them past their comfort zone and a little more emphasis on building a LOVE of learning through spreading a feast of ideas before them. 

Nevertheless, we have had a terrible time finding materials to use which were as academically challenging as what they would be doing in the CLAA, and that's what attracts us there first-- the academics.

I've prayed and prayed, reflected and thought about it, and mentally worked and re-worked next year's curriculum choices in light of everything I've learned about the Classical Liberal Arts and Charlotte Mason's ideas. I am well pleased with my choices in that department. 

I sent the original curriculum for Year 1 I had put together to the first grade teacher at Santa Catalina School in Monterey, a Dominican boarding school for Catholic girls I really respect which my parents happen to work at. The teacher was impressed, which made me confident that we were making good choices. 

I was excited, but still.... something was still not sitting right with me. 

First, the cost. Even though we are using a majority of library books and buying books used, We were looking at at least 200 bucks per students per year, and the more kids we have, the crazier this idea became, especially because I wanted to buy most of the books so we could re-use them again and again without wasting a day out at the library. 200 bucks might not seem like a lot to some people, but to us, it was huge. We already have four children--- making that about 800 a year so far! WAY less than a private school, of course, but still. I felt like we could do better. 

Some would argue that we should be fine with spending that on our children's education. And I agree , to some degree. But we are resistant because we are very attached to the idea of living simply and off of not very much, and filling our house with expensive living books wasn't meeting that need. I barely spend $150 a week at the grocery store for our family of six, so 800 a year seems... crazy, and I don't have a lot of "stuff" so overpacked bookshelves was stressing us out.

The other thing was that simplicity seemed lacking. In just two years, I'd accumulated enough homeschooling "stuff" to fill a small book case. All of which was "useful" and "thrifty"somehow, but you know.... not. The first thing I did when we joined CLAA was get rid of it all-- and it was marvelously freeing. Of course, now that the kids' lessons are NOT going to be computer-based for now, I need to work out a storage system again. I never want to go back, though, to having shelves full of items we "might" use one day.

The philosophy over at the CLAA has been really simple. The central point is to focus on the "Core"--- Grammar, Arithmetic, and Religion.

Over time, as The Core is mastered, other things are added-- natural history, geography, world chronology, etc. But only as The Core is handled well and only as the student demonstrates mastery in the core, always the core, everything relating back to The Core. The Core is the foundation for higher studies, in philosophy and theology, which will eventually lead to right living and a "true" education and worldview.

How to reproduce that without the CLAA? I didn't feel like I could. In fact, I know I can't. But I could use the next best thing... tried and true materials that have always attracted me for various reasons and in some ways, attract me more because of their format. ( I strongly dislike computer-based lessons.)

You see, if I ask my children what their favorite part of the school day is-- the part they love and would do all the time, it's a tossup between Nature Study (duh) and "when you read to us." 

No matter what age they are, they love all of us sitting together and reading from a book. When it's a book they have already read, they love helping the littler ones understand. And when it 's a new book for them, they love asking questions, narrating back (essential to the Charlotte Mason method) , and generally interacting over the book together. Kinda like how I love book or Bible studies with my girlfriends, I imagine. Sure, they think the abacus is fun and yes, they like the other aspects well enough, but that is their hands-down favorite and the one thing they never fight me on. Charlotte Mason understood this well and that is why her curriculum was based on living books as the key to unlock the "teaching" of ideas to children.

I envision our homeschool a little bit like the old one-room schoolrooms of Anne Shirley's day (yes, we use actual slates instead of reams and reams of paper and yes, we all sit around the dining room table nose deep in a book... and I dream of ink blotters). On the other hand, my husband mentally sees our homeschool eventually looking like the ancient Greek Lyceum or Academy (yes, we spend a great deal of time questioning and challenging each other's ideas and stop for wrestling practice or discus-throwing, learning soldiering and survival techniques, and olive-and-feta-cheese snacks, haha).

Combining these two is actually somewhat seamless, but those are the externals. What we teach will only be as good as the books we use to bring human ideas to life for them. And I, for one, insist on simplicity. When I look at programs, I'm not only overwhelmed but totally put off by flashcards, games, educational "toys" and the like. I like books. Period.

Many of you are familiar with Charlotte Mason's ideas about "twaddle"-- that we should keep our children's minds blissfully free of anything but the BEST ideas, and get rid of everything that amounts to the "junk food" of reading. Sure, lots of kids today are reading Harry Potter and Twilight. But what are they learning?? 

The same rules apply for movies. What is interesting is that my husband feels that most fiction is twaddle.... even some of what I would consider the "great works" of world literature. We have a vast disagreement on this point, but I suspect he's right on some level. With that in mind, we have pared down what we read that is fiction to a very few, very relevant books, ones that point to history or philosophy in ways the kids can grasp but don't immerse them in soap-style dramas and emotional fantasies. Dreaming is good--- indulging the passions is not. Aesop and Ségur good. Disney Bad. Etc.

So, I thought about the core. Grammar, Arithmetic, Religion.

I thought about the core til I was blue in the face. I searched high and low for a "paper" version of what William Michael and the CLAA are doing to some degree (obviously within limits-- we really do believe what they are offering is superior to anything else out there for many reasons). 

And what I came up with is so exciting for us that I can hardly contain myself! Which is why I'm sharing... because somewhere out there they may be someone who thinks about these things too. What's interesting is that these are mostly ideas I've been using all along and seem to always come back to even though they had no "formal" place in my curriculum as it was written. I've simply given them primary importance, removed all the fluff, and shifted our focus to them as our "Core." And it's so beautiful, and simple..... and inexpensive. I'm elated.

So without further ado, I present to you---- the curriculum. Each of these titles are available as a full set for grades 1-8, or individually. We use the same books year after year so there is only one expense and it is relatively small.... grades 1-8 take up just one shelf on our bookcase, leaving the rest for quality "classics" and religious books.

Religion:

There are a lot of expensive books out there that can be used for Catechism. Many of them are wonderful. One that is inexpensive and which we have enjoyed is Ignatius Press' Faith and Life. But upon reflection, I've realized that we always go back to the Baltimore Catechism, and that the best, by far, book I've used so far to teach the kids the Baltimore Catechism is the Our Holy Faith series by Neumann Press.

These books contain beautiful illustrations, Q  & A for rote memorization from the Baltimore Catechism, and interesting reading that engages our kids. While we liked Faith and life, quite honestly what attracted us most to these instead was the format: these books are durable, beautiful, and hardback, which means that ALL our kids can use them (whereas we have had Faith and Life for a few months and already need a new copy!)

Aside from the Catechism, which we conduct exactly like CLAA's Catechism course: We read the lesson, and then learn the Q&A. Once we've done that, we take a test that demonstrates our understanding of the lesson. And move on only when it's been mastered perfectly.

In addition, we use Neumann Press books as read-alouds, one series which is about the lives of the saints and one series which is a set of homilies that are keyed to topics in the Baltimore Catechism (awesome!) so as we do a lesson, we do read-alouds that have to do with that particular lesson. For this, we use Angel Food for Boys and Girls and Catholic Stories for Boys and Girls. Like all other Neumann press titles, these are beautifully bound and hardback, durable, and sturdy books which have withstood lots of reading. 

We have decided we are an RSV Bible family, so each of us has our own RSV, and the youngest has a copy of Fr Lovasik's "New Catholic Picture Bible." My oldest is just now starting to be able to read her bible alone, but she does copywork from it and we work at it together.

We pray the liturgy of the hours each day as a family and read the daily mass readings in our bibles. We also have two little hardback books called "Lives of the Saints" which we use to read the Saint of the Day's life each morning. 

This is "religion."

Grammar.

Grammar is supposed to contain Latin, English, Greek (and in our Homeschool, Hebrew and French!) That's a tall order. And I haven't figured out how we're going to do all that. But I'm trusting that Charlotte Mason is right when she says that at the younger ages, they need to hear and speak the language and read and write it when they are a little older.

There are ZERO programs out there besides the CLAA for teaching children Latin right off the bat. So left without a choice, we are working only on reading and verbally teaching Latin and French. The rest we will figure out when they hit third or fourth grade and there are more options. In the meantime we are giving Latin, French, and English Copywork and memorization.

Charlotte advocated GENTLE, if any, grammar lessons prior to 4th grade, and then hitting it hard. the CLAA is similar since prior to 3rd grade the kids are usually not enrolled in the Academy, and thus not studying grammar, unless they are clearly ready. Until that time they are working on reading and writing, which is the foundation for Grammar study. 

I painstakingly studied the available selections of Readers out there. I knew I didn't want to do the Bob Books and stuff like that because it just seemed "twaddly" to me. As does the usual suspects-- Dr Seuss, etc. Not that we DONT read  those, but I don't want those to be the focus.

There are two sets of Catholic readers out there. The American Cardinal Readers, from Neumann Press, are quite good. So are the Catholic National Readers although those are harder to find.

I have a soft spot for McGuffeys Eclectic Readers, as I was raised on them, however, and I'm sure they have a lot to do with my love of reading. 

And I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is a huge surge in reprinting the ORIGINAL McGuffey's series... which I seriously thought about using since they contain more "biblical" reading. However, the Original McGuffey's are Calvinist in taste and if there is one thing our household cannot stand, it's Calvinism. So as much I like the other aspects, I couldn't stand the idea of exposing my kids to Calvinism at such a young age. We decided on the revised, eclectic McGuffey's, which were revised to make them not Calvinist and thus acceptable for Catholics to use in public school in America without losing their moral value and literary brilliance,  because it contains many secular historical items whereas we found that some of the Catholic readers tried a little tooo hard to make everything "uber- Catholic."

McGuffey's also has a speller, which I have not yet used, but plan to check out. From what I've read, Charlotte Mason didn't bother with spellers, as her reading lessons and writing lessons build vocabulary and spelling skills innately. However, I'm open to the idea, should I like it once I get my hands on it. What I love about McGuffey's is that it uses quality literature and poetry and the Bible to teach the children moral lessons. This is critical to the Charlotte Mason method, except instead of having nine million books around from which I select only two or three pages each, it's all in a compact, beautiful, sturdy hardcover set of eight books. Perfect!

For actual, organized grammar lessons, we purchased Harvey's Elementary and Harvey's English Grammar, both of which are filled to the brim with fascinating and wonderful facts about our language. As the grammarian of the family, I can't get enough of these and have been pleasantly surprised to learn many new things in them! I love them.

I have had a LOT of people tell me they didn't like McGuffey's and Harvey's because the examples and stories are unrealistic for our day and the language is slightly archaic. And that is a VERY good point which will really concern some parents! 

But that's exactly why our family DOES like them very much-- because to us, there is nothing more astonishing than watching the delight with which children react to and comprehend even challenging, traditional English phrases.

 Just as Charlotte Mason suggested the reading aloud to children of the King James Bible and not some modern rendition which loses the subtlety of language, we enjoy teaching our children using examples of older English. We read the RSV to our kids, with all the "Thees and Thous." We pray the Liturgy of the Hours with our kids, not the "Now I lay me down to sleep." Etc. That's us. And these, for us, are PERFECT. 

Between the McGuffey's and Harvey's we have English covered and covered well. We are missing only Latin, Greek, Hebrew and French, which will come in time as inspiration strikes... quite probably through the CLAA. Grammar? Done. 

Arithmetic.

At first, I was kind of frustrated with my system because I had such cool, easy, simple, inexpensive hardback books for the other two elements of the Core, and I was missing something that would be similar since we have been using Singapore Math, which has lots of huge paperback workbooks, colors, and pictures.

I really like Singapore Math, but it definitely doesn't match my ""traditional, classical" homeschooling philosophy in the externals. It basically accomplishes what it should in the internals... it makes great, logical thinkers.

Enter Ray's Arithmetic. Again, like the McGuffey's these are hardback, eight volume sets of books meant to be read aloud to the student which go from basic to higher arithmetic using classical English and traditional weights, prices, measurements--- so not great for those concerned about modern language or situations.

However, the quality of the instruction (and I'm not a "math person" so I could be wrong here) seems to be very similar to the Classical Arithmetic course at CLAA from what I can tell.... and therefore, we love it.

Combining Ray's and Singapore together seem to be a good fit for my kids-- they like doing the workbooks and really enjoy the "quiet thinking" time it requires of them. On the other hand, Ray's requires exactly what they love-- interaction with mom, reading time together, and LOTS of mental math and word problems... all the things they need to build a great thinking process. Ray's is inexpensive as a set and will last and last and is TOTALLY sufficient for kids to learn what they need to in arithmetic all by itself.

One note if you like them is that the company, Mott's, who publishes these is transitioning them to paperbacks to keep costs down. This makes me sad, because I HATE paperbacks. So get em while you can! I've already got our set. And let them know, if you think of it, how much you enjoy having the hardbacks.

I may eventually drop Singapore in later years, but right now I'm really enjoying using them both together and so are the kids, and I got the go- ahead to do so from several math teachers I respect. Since Dr. Arcara, who writes the CLAA Arithmetic Courses, has his kids in both CLAA Classical Arithmetic AND Singapore, I figure I'm on the right track with this one. Singapore is the only "every year" purchase I'm making, at about 10 bucks a workbook. And we use the abacus to teach them, just as the Chinese, Japanese, Greeks, Romans have done before us.

The "Other Core"--or framework: the Non-Cores.

In the non-core realm we have history, geography, science, art, art history, and music. My kids do nature study (which is free) a-la Charlotte Mason for their science and it is wonderful. When they are older they will study physics, astronomy, and maybe chemistry, but for now, it's Biology, Botany, Geology and all forms of life science which they glean from the study of their natural surroundings and the classifying of these things. I don't drop nature study because it's also a way for them to get exercise and fresh air. One hour, every day. Outside. Observing creation.

For History and Geography (and everything else, to some degree) we are going to be using Connecting With History. Volume one arrived yesterday and it's going to make my life a lot easier-- essentially it does what I was trying to do on my own and makes it easy. The program breaks down History into four sections broken down into units, teaches a Catholic worldview, uses living books and the classical method, and does the planning for you to some degree. It costs very little, and can form the "Core" of the externals. With Connecting with History, for example, my kids are studying Ancient History the first year. They will do history, geography, literature, art, picture study, home economics, science, natural history, physical education, and music study, -- even Bible study and Catechism-- relating directly to the period in history they are studying, which makes planning anything else really easy and fun. And SIMPLE. No more trying to fit it ALL in. They will cycle through these once every stage of their classical education, deepening their understanding as they go.

The core texts of the program are worth owning because they are amazing, and the rest can be found at the library. True to Charlotte Mason's methods, the program incorporates narration, living books from original sources as much as possible, the Book of Centuries and Book of Mottoes in itself. It's wonderful.

So that's it! When they hit 8 or 9th grade, we will add philosophy and theology, and a couple higher science courses as we had planned. This isn't a deviation from our plan at all but a simplification of what we were doing-- we are still getting rid of books instead of buying new ones (other than the cores, many of which we already owned) and still focused intensely on a life of quiet, hard work, study and prayer. Next year will be a lot easier to implement, a lot easier to organize, and a lot easier to work through. In the core subjects, the kids will spend the majority of their time and will work to perfection, moving to the next lesson only when the previous lesson has been mastered. In the non-core subjects, the kids will build attention and observation skills, read amazing books and ideas, and a solidly Catholic worldview. 

For the first time my husband is NOT having visions (nightmares??) of overpacked bookshelves and kids lounging around reading fiction all day, and I'm NOT having visions (nightmares??) of kids bent over their desks sullen and miserable and hating school. 

We have been doing this for a week now and it's JUST like we are back in the CLAA again, except we are really missing the help with Latin. I'm convinced this is the best possible preparation I can give them to study the Classical Liberal Arts under someone else far more knowledgeable than ourselves, and we are both equally convinced that we've found the combination of Charlotte Mason/Classical ideology that really suits our family (simple, affordable, VERY flexible, and academically rigorous and twaddle-free) for the first time. 

Fall can't come soon enough! I'm shocked and amazed at how seamless the Appian Way Academy is coming along now that we've got this all sorted out.
How's your planning coming? Hope sharing this helps someone out there. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about these specific materials or our experience with the CLAA.