>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.curriculumconnection.net/thomasjeffeducation.htm
>
> I posted this description 4-1/2 years ago on a homeschool list in 2001
> right after I attended my first Thomas Jefferson Ed seminar. I typed up my
> notes the night after I got back and sent it to a list that seemed to
> really be grappling with the idea of relaxing over academics. I felt
> extremely energized to make changes after that 2 days, I could see a path
> between my rigid background, my classical leanings, and my growing
> convictions that I needed to relax and involve my kids more in their
> educational process, more than what I had gotten from reading Charlotte
> Mason or Ruth Beechik type writings, as I had a budding middle schooler
> by this time. As I re-read it now, it still seems representative of what I
> recall were the primary points of the philosophy as they struck me at the
> time, but I was a lot more conservative and tentative in 2001 then than I
> am today, so it comes across a bit that way below, I just don't have time
> to completely rewrite it though. In particular, some of the accountability
> language (reporting back to me on a daily basis) and scheduling seems
> artificial, we just don't need it anymore, because it's become a natural
> lifestyle. But it was important 4-1/2 years ago when I was making changes
> to have a bridge of accountability in order to make the kind of
> significant changes that we did.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> Sept of 2001:
>
> I attended a 2 day seminar titled "A Thomas Jefferson Education" put on by
> George Wythe College. George Wythe was TJ's mentor. The ideas are what a
> "leadership education" is, compared to a professional education or a
> public school / "conveyor belt" education.
>
> The author of the book, A Thomas Jefferson Education, Oliver DeMille,
> spoke both days. He challenged us that many homeschoolers are still stuck
> on the conveyor belt mentality, that we feel a need to direct our
> children's studies to "cover all the bases." He goes about it from a
> different approach. While he has ideas for how to implement these ideas in
> a child's education when they are older, the premise is that you are using
> the earlier years to develop a love of learning in your child, so that
> they want to study deeply when they get older, in a goal oriented manner,
> and that goal may very well be a liberal arts college, and in fact, his
> goal is that any child that has been raised this way will in fact be
> prepared for any strenuous "depth phase" program (college or a
> professional school / apprenticeship, if done).
>
> The ideas that stuck with me was that my job as a parent is to inspire,
> not require, and to model, not force. DeMille indicates that yes, one can
> pendulum swing too far the other way, but he feels that in our culture,
> there is little danger of that, especially in the audience we had that is
> usually more rigid homeschoolers looking for ways to have greater peace
> and joy in their homeschooling environments.
>
> He advocates a very relaxed approach to the "Core Phase" (and he makes it
> clear that ages are only average, but are by no means absolute) which
> could be up to age 8. This can be very much like Charlotte Mason, although
> he prefers to go so far as having no academic structure at all, until they
> are asking for it. The curriculum is, what's right / wrong, good / bad,
> true / false. He says children learn to read because they want to, they
> write because they want to, and their job is to work and play with mom and
> dad, with the core concept being they need to come out of this phase with
> a strong sense of the families' morals and ethics. They may or may not
> read or write on our schedule; they will on theirs, but if they are
> working, playing and learning, there is no reason to push. When people in
> the audience asked him, what do I *do* while their in core phase? He says
> work on upgrading your own education. Study all those things you didn't
> get in your own conveyor belt education. His own wife has three children
> in this category with older children as well, and she schedules 4 hours a
> day for her own study time - and gets maybe 1 hour out of it after
> interruptions to read books and do other things with the kids, but she's
> modeling a love of learning and they're learning that learning is fun and
> cool.
>
> From approximately age 8 to 10/12ish is what he calls the Love of Learning
> phase, and the goal is to structure time, not content. This is hard for me
> to think of, but I can see for my oldest, possibly the most important
> change I could make. I can't tell you how many times I've had my son to
> put down an excellent book he'd chosen that wasn't on our reading list, or
> stop studying something, because his "goals" weren't done, these came
> first. My son would read and study at least 4 to 6 hours a day if I would
> let him study on his own. This philosophy would say, let him. The only
> catches are, one, they sit down with you afterward and tell you what they
> learned - if they can't, they go back and redo their structured learning
> time. This is the time that you find ways to help extend the "base" of
> what they are studying - if it is art, extending it into geometry, and art
> history; if it's math, extending it into the mathematicians that came up
> with the concepts, spinning the ideas, if you will, studying with them, as
> he puts it, mapping to their interests, while modeling you yourself have
> your own interests and encourage cross mapping, if you will, rather than
> one-way. That doesn't mean just saying "that's cool." It means helping
> them study what they want to learn about intensely, and helping ensure in
> this way that the base (the liberal arts across the spectrum) are covered.
> Secondly, increasing their true study time will reduce their ultimate
> responsibilities at home, and the converse is true, as they grow older and
> older - as he put it, by the time they're 17 and in what he calls "Scholar
> Phase," if they really don't want to study (and he says this is rare
> because the incentives are so high), you tell them then they need to get a
> job and help support themselves / family.
>
> I relate all of this to what I see now in our home. My 6 year old has
> taken off on studying many things himself. He's using math in daily life
> in ways I never expected a 6 year old to do. The freedom to explore and
> deeply study something of interest, or in my older son's case, to allow
> him to read on a broad range of topics like grazing on an enormous buffet
> is hugely attractive. In both of their cases I have been working on
> encouraging and modeling a love of learning. I educated myself in much of
> the classics while my mom was divorcing and I was spending virtually all
> my free time at age 12 in the library. This material just gave me a
> structure to put my ideas in that made sense, and helps me have faith and
> no guilt in not following a traditional model in my home. But it wouldn't
> work right after I pulled them out of a structured ISP / school at home
> program. They hadn't learned to love learning.
>
> There is structure. There are chores and training for the younger ones,
> set study times, which can also be academic classes they choose. DeMille
> spent quite a bit of time discussing discipline hot topic issues - you are
> the expert in your home, you know what is good, and what isn't. This is
> the criteria for censoring any books, video games, tv, etc. - not
> educational value or lack thereof.
>
> The actual part of the seminar that I thought I was going for
> related to teaching kids through classics, including math, science, arts,
> etc. He defines a classic as a work that deserves to be read or gone
> through over and over, it has that kind of value, so there are old
> classics and new ones :o). We did colloquiums (book discussions) on
> required reading - Little Britches, The Chosen, and Jane Eyre (my all-time
> favorite book since age 11). The emphasis was on active, interested
> learning. But they also went into great depth on the value of teaching -
> early! - mathematical *thinking*, before computation, and let the
> computational education follow (this, btw, is different from what many
> language-arts based classical programs will advocate). For kids that are
> not innately mathematical, this is what makes all the difference in the
> world between math being tears and frustration, or math being fun and
> interesting. Learning 1+1 = 2 is, well, boring. Learning the different
> answers you get under Newton's theories and Einstein's (Einstein proved
> that 1+1= infinity, and that's a whole 'nuther discussion!) and why -
> that's interesting. Learning about the lives of mathematicians, Thales and
> the stories of how he figured out the height of the pyramids, critical
> thinking and logic (story of the donkey and the salt mine) - these are
> fascinating, and they teach math! Euclid's Books of the Elements don't
> even contain numbers, but are hugely effective in developing mathematical
> thinking - oh by the way, learning why they don't have numbers is a bit of
> fascinating history. I have determined we will be doing a math history
> group here very shortly!
>
> There was valuable information about when to expose kids to things - for
> example, music and languages are stored in different brain pathways after
> 12, so they are best introduced early, although forcing is unnecessary,
> and it isn't a given that if a child hasn't learned an instrument by 12
> they will never be musical. Time availability is actually of more
> importance here for music. Yes the child chooses their own content, but if
> you are learning Spanish and involve them, play with them, play Spanish
> songs, talk to them in Spanish - they will often willingly learn with you.
> However, math pathways develop more steadily through life and later in
> most kids, so rushing into concepts they aren't ready for is painful. And
> some concepts may never click, such as in algebra, if the pathways in the
> brain haven't been forged by development of appropriate mathematical
> thinking. There was so much interesting stuff in this area.
>
> This seminar finally taught me *why* for example music is important even
> if a child is bent on being a scientist, or why we should study art - I
> honestly never knew why, which made it difficult for me to model it to my
> kids. Einstein's early violin playing unlocked his ability to articulate
> the ideas that were floating around his head; violin playing helped
> Jefferson get over writer's block as he was drafting the Declaration of
> Independence. And those that are proponents of piano first might be
> interested in studies that show that instruments that develop the hands
> doing separate activities, such as the violin and other stringed
> instruments, to be superior to piano for the value in development of
> musical / mathematical thinking. Learning to draw or paint teaches
> unparalleled observation skills. All of these are enormously valuable to
> historical studies and understanding. Music theory itself is a
> mathematical course, and art often requires math to create appropriate
> perspective, on and on . . .
>
> These aren't individual subjects, this philosophy argues. By carving them
> out and studying each separately, it's like carving out our nutrients from
> our foods - we lose the synergistic and efficient qualities of studying
> these contemporaneously. We all know this, but it seems that the tradition
> of studying math, then writing, then literature, then art, etc. is so
> pervasive and difficult to abandon. Unit studies are a way to get at this,
> but are still more structured than this approach, so if they are parent
> driven and forced, and you again lose the aspect of interest, engagement
> and independent thinking on the part of the child.
>
> As the child hits around 10, if they have developed a love of learning,
> they begin to voluntarily stretch their study time and start thinking of
> Scholar Phase, a time when, at its peak, a child is spending anywhere from
> 8 to 12 hours, 5-7 days a week, in intense study, which can include active
> study such as music practice, martial arts and other non-traditional
> studies. I recall uneasiness in the room when he indicated that scholar
> phase for a highly gifted athlete could be focused on that athlete's sport
> and not be anything like the traditional classical education thought of. I
> could easily see how I myself at 16 would have loved to study like that if
> I could read as much as I liked. DeMille mentioned that one obstacle to
> this can be the level of reliance we place on older children to help with
> the house. They use that as motivation in their family - that is a benefit
> of Scholar Phase, and the younger kids end up taking on more household
> responsibilities when the older child enters this phase. The key
> difference between this and most classical ed programs we know - the
> child/teen is still directing their own content. We can suggest, and
> provide motivation through group experiences or family experiences. But
> ultimately the choices are left to them.
>
> There's other work that leads up to this, the whole concept of a child
> having a mission in life is deeply understood by the middle of the scholar
> phase, as the parents themselves have this idea deeply understood and is
> living it, hopefully :o). This is the point that many parents would think
> would be too big a leap of faith, how can a child know? I think that
> allowing a child more and more choice of their time and content as they
> get older does in fact make sense. The speakers shared many, many stories
> that helped drive this idea home, and diagramed an example I'm not sure I
> can explain, but in case anyone is still with me, I'll try. Trying to
> cover all the bases ensures a rather shallow base of knowledge of
> everything, much of which is memorized, vs. learned through interrelation
> to things that interest them. They've "covered" everything, but don't have
> a very deep knowledge of anything, even something like music unless they
> have the freedom and drive to get that for themselves. On the other hand,
> a musically inclined child that has spent 5,000+ hours learning everything
> there is to know about music has earned an incredibly comprehensive
> knowledge of a strong area of interest - while they have still covered
> most if not all of the main bases of history, math, science, etc. - truly,
> if they have learned *all* they can about music. So, if they didn't quite
> pick up all the names of the US capitals, well, wouldn't we rather have
> the depth of that liberal arts education where the knowledge will be
> remembered in a relevant interested fashion? And can't they fill in a few
> blanks later? I would, I've forgotten most of these things anyway.
>
> The Love of Learning phase is how we get them into scholar phase, through
> inspiring them, showing them, allowing them to make decisions, making
> things simple and not complex. By the time they get to scholar phase,
> which is in total approx. 5,000 to 8,000 hours of intensive study, the
> focus is on classics, not textbooks - original sources, not summaries.
> Mentors, not professors. Quality, not conformity. Many of us do this
> already - "grades" are A - accepted, DA - do it again, reminiscent of my
> sister's PhD program grading. They *want* to do this. There may be a
> period of one to three years where they go in and out of scholar phase,
> which is completely natural, we encourage them when they falter to try it,
> when they do it for a while and back out, we help them make *small*
> commitments and stick to them.
>
> The commitment aspect is something I'm omitting I realize - basically, the
> parent and child have an operating agreement and a commitment. In love of
> learning, they may study x number of hours, report what they learned, but
> nothing interferes with the study time. If they've bitten off more than
> they can chew, cut back, but find a level of commitment they can succeed
> at. When they say, I want to be in scholar phase, you say fine, knowing
> they'll blow it - and you help them make that transition over time in
> managing those commitments.
>
> One of the most valuable aspects of the seminar were 2-1/2 hours of q&a
> periods where people asked, what about my later reader, or my reluctant
> writer, or my daydreamer, etc. etc. My typing fingers just aren't equipped
> right now to get into that, but it had a great deal of value in helping me
> understand how in practicality I could make the shift from my personally
> structured mentality to something as loose as this.
>
> There was a lengthy session yesterday about why we might want to give
> ourselves a superior classical liberal arts education, why this was such a
> critical element of the education of the leaders of most civilizations.
> Successful leaders were taught how to think independently. There was a
> session that taught that for one to be great in a field, they must a)
> learn the rules, b) study the masters, and then c) break the rules ;o).
> Look at every great artist that has introduced a new period or genre,
> that's what they did. Even if one wants to be a gymnast, if one is to be a
> leader, there are diplomatic reasons to know about Bach and Beethoven -
> basically, you'll be embarrassed if you don't! It's all about wanting to
> be a leader in society, another mission we teach them.
>
> This is hard work and college goal oriented, actually. A parent is, as he
> says over and over, still the expert in the home, and discipline in
> accordance with a family's moral and ethical beliefs is critical. However,
> the forcing of curriculum or other educational programs are what they
> believe kills a child's own innate desire to learn; he doesn't say throw
> it all out, because it may be useful as a reference, but using it as the
> basis for "doing school" is out with this philosophy.
>
> Interestingly he says that many programs we know about are good - for
> specific phases. Unschooling in a disciplined context (for the goal of
> this phase is character building, not academic, although learning is
> certainly occurring) is great for core phase. CM and unit studies can be
> great for love of learning phase. WTM can be great for scholar phase, and
> so on.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Julie Brennan in San Diego
> Mom to dss 14-1/2 & 11, dds going on 9 & 7
>
> "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men."
> Frederick Douglass (1817-1895)
>
> http://www.livingmath.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment