After reading Schaeffer Macaulay, I was wholly prepared to love this book, too. Instead, I find every skeptical antennae I have on ALERT.
I'm sure it's not the first time someone has had this reaction. Since I have not read all of Miss Mason's works, I can't tell, in all honesty, whether my reaction is to Miss Mason or her representative. So, if I say Levinson when I should say Mason or vice versa, please grant me the indulgence given to a beginning student.
My first thought is: it can't be as simple as just doing narrations. You cannot provide an education merely by asking children to repeat back to you, whether verbally or in writing, what they have heard or read for themselves. Narrations, rather, are a place to start.
They are an excellent means for organizing and retaining the story and information of what one has been exposed to. And it isn't quite the be all and end all. There's the Book of Centuries, for example, which is a tool used by the child to make connections between events and happenings in history. In Nature study, it's mentioned so casually by Levinson it's easy to miss: but one is to label the drawings one makes. One should know the difference between a sepal and a petal. (Perhaps one should, I don't!) If narrations were the be all and end all, a child would never compare and contrast two presentations of the same idea, at least not in so far as I understand narration (and perhaps I don't understand it!).
Secondly, how does a Charlotte Mason education escape being merely the cultivation and expression of taste? Think about it. The books shall be "good ones." No twaddle. The art shall be "The Masters." Ditto music. Taste can certainly be trained. It's a class notion, though, as well as an educational one. If you act like you are well educated, look like you are well educated and sound like you are well educated--then who's to say you are not? And who defines "well-educated?"
In times in which Miss Mason lived, it was most definitely the upper class--those who attended Oxford or Cambridge. I have the impression (but an impression only) that the subjects which were studied in the private schools of England at the turn of the century represented high standards and had the potential to furnish the mind with a good education. Most likely, the public schools of the day for the common folk were very poor. But the way Levinson portrays Charlotte Mason, it seems to me that one could only achieve the appearence of the accomplishments of the higher education and not, truly, its reality. But, of course, I'm can't be sure of that. (And whether the education of the upper class achieved its aims is a question too.)
Thirdly and lastly, these reflections were caused by thinking mostly about the way Miss Mason recommended teaching a second language. Of course, you have an expert (an actual speaker of the language) come and speak to them. Of course, you "focus more on the grammer of latin" than you would the other languages....
This is where the whole thing breaks down for me. If an expert in French (or German or Latin) is allowed, then why not an expert in Biology, in Math, in Literature?
Learning grammar and spelling of one's own language in the tortorous way Miss Mason advises, frankly, just doesn't appeal. Nor do I honestly think it would work, unless the child is a natural speller to begin with. Covering the concepts in a textbook or program of some kind first and then reenforcing it in one's readings and writing seems a much more sensible approach.
There are two things, though, I think Miss Mason was spot on about. 1) The food for the mind is ideas. As platonic a notion as this is, it is nonetheless correct.
2) A child, a household, must always have the examples of the best presented. This is just a practical manifestation of Paul's exhoration in Philippians 4:8-9.
All that said, I am quite interested in what Miss Mason has to say about habit and training the will. Someone said to me once that although Miss Mason's method of educating was questionable, she was absolutely correct about children. Levinson gives a great guide to Miss Mason's writings on the subject.
My opinions, by the way, are always open to revision and reflection and perhaps I ought not to be quite so hasty to express them! Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I found your comments interesting as the more I think about Mason's ideas the more I don't like them. Yes, it's a good thing to read "living" books, but that's not exactly a new idea. Narration works well for it's purpose, but as you say, it is limited in scope. Copywork and Dictation work well for providing scaffold models a la Vygotsky, but as you say, it requires a great deal of preparation to choose ideal models to ensure that what needs to be taught is, indeed, covered. Nature study is a good way of discovering the more evident elements of biology and even geology, but biochemistry is a little harder to cover in this way, and a whole lot more necessary in this world of genetic manipulation. I think Mason's methods are good for the basics, but like Montessori methods, they are not adequate for a complete education to adulthood.
The main problem I see with Mason is her idea that children are basically good and will become marvels if they are just brought up in the best environment. Wasn't this what Rousseau proposed in Emile and has been the bane of classical educators ever since? Kids are little sinners, and they need more than habituation to good moral choices, they need a Saviour. And let's not forget that the parents who educate are all sinners as well - it's not a very realistic goal to ascribe to, is it, that we will ever be able to provide the perfect environment and perfect interactions to produce the perfect child? I just can't see myself succeeding with Mason's methods because I know myself too well.
Post a Comment