This post begins a series of articles on figuring out your homeschool philosophy. Note that there are a variety of options here: the “unschool” approach, which pretty much lets kids drive the educational process with little in the way of formal training. Then there’s the self-taught approach, which is much more academically rigorous, but with an emphasis on children learning to teach themselves. Another option is the Classical approach, which, though variously defined, places an emphasis on history, favors language-based study over image-focused study, and follows the pattern of the Medieval Trivium (Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric).
Then there’s Charlotte Mason, which we will be considering today. Charlotte Mason was an early twentieth-century educator who developed a philosophy of teaching that is followed by many home educators today. First, we should note that Charlotte Mason was herself a classical educator, so this method has much in common with the modern Classical movement. I recently gave a talk at the Veritas teacher training conference, and one of the other workshops was on the similarities between “Charlotte and Dorothy” (Dorothy L. Sayers, whose seminal essay, “The Lost Tools of Learning,” birthed the modern revival of Classical education).
So there’s a great deal of overlap between the two philosophies, and as we will be dealing with Classical education in a series of future posts, we’ll not cover all that ground now. But here is a brief summary of the Charlotte Mason philosophy, from Susan Wise Bauer, Classical home educator and author of The Well-Trained Mind (note that she is drawing this summary from the writings of a contemporary Charlotte Mason advocate):
“In her first chapter, Levinson summarizes the Mason method as relying on narration, rather than workbooks; on whole and living books, rather than textbooks; and as utilizing short morning lessons with the afternoon and evening free.”
Here are a few other details, from a popular Charlotte Mason website:
“Charlotte’s students used living books rather than dry textbooks. Living books are usually written in story form by one author who has a passion for the subject. A living book makes the subject ‘come alive.’ She taught spelling by using passages from great books that communicate great ideas rather than just a list of words. She encouraged spending time outdoors, interacting with God’s creation firsthand and learning the living ways of nature.”
There is much good here, and home educators should consider these concepts.
At St George Academy (our family homeschool), we do use some of these methods, but do not embrace the Charlotte Mason philosophy unreservedly. Indeed, I have some real concerns. Consider this, from Charlotte Mason’s A Philosophy of Education (emphasis mine):
1. Children are born persons.
2. They are not born either good or bad, but with possibilities for good and for evil.
3. The principles of authority on the one hand, and of obedience on the other, are natural, necessary and fundamental; but––
4. These principles are limited by the respect due to the personality of children, which must not be encroached upon whether by the direct use of fear or love, suggestion or influence, or by undue play upon any one natural desire.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but these principles are foolish and unbiblical: “as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’” (Romans 3:10-12).
This includes children, certainly, as David makes clear: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5)
Moreover, according to Mason, we must not “encroach” upon the personality of children “by the direct use of…fear or love, suggestion, or influence”? What on earth does this mean? That we must not directly try to influence our children, either by appeals to love or fear? Surely not. Again, the Bible teaches otherwise, pointing out that fathers are to rebuke and chastise children who sin. And of course, we remember that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10).
Perhaps some Charlotte Mason advocates out there will tell me I have not understood what she means here. If so, I welcome the interaction. But it does seem to me that so many of the prevailing homeschool philosophies out there seem not to take into account the fallen state of humanity, even in our children.
Here’s more from Mason: “Therefore, children should be taught, as they become mature enough to understand such teaching, that the chief responsibility which rests on them as persons is the acceptance or rejection of ideas.”
We answer, with the Westminster Divines, that, “the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” Acceptance or rejection of ideas comes (logically) later, and is indeed part of the intellectual work of the Christian. But without the light of Christ and His Word, we will not be able to see clearly which ideas to accept and which to reject.
Clearly, then, Christians cannot simply cut and paste the Charlotte Mason method into a Christian homeschool setting, since her philosophy of education (at certain points) flies in the face of Biblical teaching. She did have some good ideas, though, which we can and should take, and, mutatis mutandis, incorporate into our home education program. Examples of this would be the emphases on living books and narration.
Another concern I have with Charlotte Mason (as well as other “three Rs” approaches, such as the Robinson curriculum, A2, etc), is the relative lack of parental involvement. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis from another context, if you give a child an open door, he will go through it. In this case, I mean an open door to error, false doctrine, bad philosophy, and so on. Parents should be actively involved in the process of passing on the Christian worldview to their children: cf. Lewis in The Abolition of Man, and the idea that education involves teaching children right emotional responses to actions, ideas, works of art, etc. Neglecting this element of training in the “ordinate affections,” Lewis contended, resulted in the raising of “men without chests.”
We want children to love things that are true, good, and beautiful, and to hate things that are false, evil, and ugly. And I think the Classical method offers a good correction to Charlotte Mason here. Bauer says this: “…a predominant theme in Mason education is, ‘Don’t get between the child and the book, don’t talk too much, and don’t lecture.’ There’s a delicate balance to be found here…very young children (1-4) need plenty of guidance, and…the parent should not be afraid to teach explicitly what the child needs to know…”
Bauer once again on Catherine Levison’s book, Charlotte Mason Education: “Levison’s writings also require balance. Her suggestions often seem to veer close to an attitude of, ‘Children are wise and can learn on their own.’ Yet the book lists she offers – Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare for six to nine year olds, Dickens for eleven-year-olds – certainly require the parent to explain and clarify.”
This is no doubt true, but there is something else that is apparently (for I have not read Levinson) missing, at least in Bauer’s critique: if we are assuming that “children are wise and can learn on their own,” then not only are we failing to guide them in their intellectual understanding, we are also failing to take into account what Wilson calls “The Student in Adam,” i.e., the fact that children, cute and seemingly innocent as they may be, are actually fallen sinners. This is true not only in their behavior but in their thinking (what theologians call the noetic effect of sin). Without proper guidance from Holy Scripture and sound Christian doctrine and commentary, they will certainly not arrive at orthodox teaching on their own. They must be guided into truth, especially if, as Bauer and other Classical advocates insist, they are to read Greek, Roman, and Enlightenment-era American and English philosophers.
Bauer says, “Read to the child, explain where necessary, and discuss those things that seem important, but don’t try to make every text an opportunity for a lecture, or you’ll lose the child’s attention.”
This is partly right, but misses something important: a Walk Along, Talk Along discipleship model (Deuteronomy 6) need not involve “lectures.” It’s more about conversation: asking children questions, guiding them in the answers, and hearing their own questions.
***
Tune in tomorrow (August 12 2010) for Part II of this Review of Charlotte Mason Home Education.
I have added a link to this post on the Raising Homemakers "Homemaking Linkup," which I discovered through my wife's parenting website, This Parenting Adventure. Give 'em both a look.
