Sunday, January 24, 2010

Week 1 Reading - Book 1, Chapter 1, Pages 1-10

Welcome to our first week! I was going to have this portion be twice as long, but when I got into the discussion questions, I realized we have more than enough things to discuss with only these 10 pages. It's probably about 15 minutes' worth of reading.

I will first post the discussion questions so we can begin discussing as soon as possible. Then, hopefully tomorrow, I will have the summary posted for those who are not able to actually read the book so they can join in as well.

Discussion Questions


1. CM says that "children are a public trust". Do you agree or disagree with this statement? She uses it in the sense that children do not belong to parents to do with as they please, but that they are to bring them up in a way that will make them fit members of society. What would be the Biblical perspective on that idea?



2. "What is to be expected when one of the most intricate of problems is undertaken by those who have given scarcely a thought to the principle on which its solution depends? For shoemaking or housebuilding, for the management of a ship or of a locomotive engine, a long apprenticeship is needful. Is it, then, that the unfolding of a human being in body and mind is so comparatively simple a process that any one may superintend and regulate it with no preparation whatever?" I know people joke that there should be qualifications for parents, but the world just doesn't work that way. It is interesting that people prepare for nearly every other career, but for mothering there is no formal training. When should people start thinking about how to parent? What can we do when we find ourselves already parenting and realize there are things we don't no?

3. Page 5 says, "Nothing is trivial that concerns a child; his foolish-seeming words and ways are pregnant with meaning for the wise. It is in the infinitely little we must study the infinitely great; and the vast possibilities, and the right direction of education, are indicated in the open book of the little child's thoughts." Charlotte Mason is using this to say that children are best left to blossom on their own, using her phrase "masterly inactivity" to describe the position of the parent - always overseeing, always watching, always having the materials for learning and growth available, but keeping the meddling to a minimum. Have you noticed things in your own life that were '"infinitely little" when you were small but still are a part of your character or personality or interests today? For example, my parents have a home video of me holding up a bag of animal crackers and telling the cameraman what a bargain they were at the store. Come to find out, I would still enjoy bargain shopping today. Have you noticed anything in your kids already that you think might be a glimpse of things to come, either positive or negative? What can we do to help them develop the good things that we see pieces of and nip the bad ones in the bud before they blossom into something we don't want to deal with later?

4. Pages 6-8 talk about methods of education in the past and whether it's right to be strict or loose with children. A child of 5 is quoted as saying "I shall never make a sailor if I can't face the wind and rain." In these days of wipe warmers, I think our culture leans towards the side of pampering children. Is this good or bad? How much hardship should they be allowed or encouraged to endure? What age should this start? (This may be controversial.)

5. On page 8, the question is asked, "What do you propose that education shall effect in and for your child?" How would you answer that?

6. Page 9 discusses methods vs. systems and the fact that systems try to pigeonhole people who are living, breathing beings. Have you seen any failures of the system method?

To begin the discussion, leave a comment on this post. To keep things organized, let's state the number of the question we're responding to before the response. That way you can respond to multiple things in one post if you wish and everyone can easily see what you are talking about. Of course, if you want to bring up something else, feel free to - just make it #7 and so forth.

11 comments:

@lici@ said...

#1 -
I agree that children are a trust. . .a trust for the Lord, not in any way for society and far less for the nation. The idea that the government has a vested interest in our children is one of the major arguments for government-run school and government-chosen curricula. It is a Marxist idea.

@lici@ said...

#2 -
I tend to think the best formal training for marriage, parenting, etc., is simple character-building. In the years since Mason wrote, we've increasingly made a science of both relationships and parenting, and I can't see that the increase in education about the roles has done much good. Good parents are godly people first.

As far as the practical aspects go (changing a diaper, preparing food, entertaining and disciplining), I definitely think those things are best learned pre-marriage. . .and they were, until our culture started having smaller, less-age-spread families that moved away from each other. I've been enormously grateful that I could concentrate on the (for me) more difficult intangible skills of being a parent instead of learning how to provide all the physical care. Since we had daycare kids--often infants/toddlers--in our home during almost all of my school years, taking care of a child is not something I lost sleep figuring out. It also allows me time to look ahead and prepare for things I feel unprepared for.

As a side note, Mason seems a bit self-contradictory here. She first enthuses about a mother's God-given intuition and knowledge of her children's needs, etc. Then she seems to say that parents have been and are continuing to be complete failures because they will not study current developmental sciences to learn about their children. Maybe I'm being over critical--I certainly found little use for my college courses in educational development, so I'm not necessarily objective.

@lici@ said...

#5 -
My goal for Carolyn's education is to teach her how to learn and give her the basic knowledge needed to provide a foundation for anything she may delve into in the future. "How to learn" means not only how to read and study, but how to think and analyze ideas. Also, she should be able to articulate those ideas and how they fit (or why they don't fit) in a Christian worldview.

@lici@ said...

A note -
I feel like I've been largely critical, which rather surprised me. This is a first read for me, though it's been on my reading list for a few years now. I really didn't expect to take issue with much, and instead I find myself taking issue with most. (Maybe not really most--I just am left with a generally negative feeling.) I'm not trying to be adversarial here, really. (Should I be concerned that my word verification for this comment is "dying"?)

Rachel said...

I don't really have anything to add to Alicia's comments. I think we all probably agree so far on that which we disagree with CM. :-)
My only difference is that I can see where my educational development classes were helpful to me. I loved learning the reasons behind why I do what I do. I don't think my classes changed "how" I would parent, but I think I am more confident in my method because I understand the "why." Of course, I don't think a college education is necessary for a parent to understand those things, but I do think my college education opened those doors of thinking (directions of thinking?) for me. My daughter, on the other hand, will be exposed to these ideas throughout her education.

adelantegirl said...

#1 - I agree that children are a public trust. But, let me explain. I think that first and foremost they are a trust that we have been given from the Lord. But, yes, also for society. You can’t separate the two. I believe that God has put us in this world with a purpose to glorify Him and share His love with others. We do that through EVERYthing that we do – our work, our relationships. God is glorified as people come to know Him. As we raise our children we are teaching them about God but we are also teaching them about how to function in society, provide for their livelihood, and raise their families to serve and love God as well. This glorifies God but I have to believe that it ALSO benefits society. God has called and commanded us (in many places throughout the Bible) to share His love with others. This is in the public interest (even if they don’t always know it).

adelantegirl said...

#2 - I think each of us is always learning and growing in each of our roles – parent, wife, child, worker, Chrsitian, etc. It would be nice if more people DIDN’T have kids that weren’t preparing to put their children above themselves. But, the best we can do is not worry about others or judge them and instead focus on doing the best we can for OUR children. I personally know that I have fallen into thinking that I do certain things better as a parent than other people. But, I also see how their kids are wonderful, beautiful creations that God loves dearly as well. And, sometimes I even learn things from them!

adelantegirl said...

#3 - GOOD QUESTION! I sure would like to know the best thing to do when my almost 2 year old throws a complete temper tantrum for no apparent reason! I’m working to instill patience, helpfulness, kindness. I’d love to hear some other thoughts on this one! I do believe that the way we act towards our children and react to them has a big difference. I would only mildly disagree with CM. I think sometimes, Yes, we need to let children be and avoid meddling. But, there are other times when our children THRIVE on our direct interaction, instruction, and involvement with them.

adelantegirl said...

#4 - Personally, I don’t think my son should have to endure hardship just to learn something. However, we don’t need to try to protect our children from everything either. There are lessons in life – like consequences – that he should have to endure to learn from mistakes. But, I don’t think we need to be “strict” with our children just to teach them a lesson. I prefer to give my son freedom to explore and do – with appropriate boundaries. I purposely try to make our living environment full of things that are accessible to him to explore and use. I don’t see any point in imposing limitations simply for the purpose of teaching boundaries, or in making things difficult just to toughen them up for the real world. There are plenty of things that for safety or sensibility HAVE to be off limits. There are plenty of things in life that we are going to have to help them work hard at overcoming. Better than boundaries and rules I think we need to focus on teaching our children how to make proper decisions and weigh the merit in any given decision.

adelantegirl said...

#5 - Good question – I’m still working on that one. That’s part of the reason I’m participating in this discussion – to help solidify my goals/methods. First and foremost I want Jaden to know and love God – and desire to serve Him in all he does. But, I know that’s more about the Holy Spirit working that in his heart than my efforts at teaching it.
I want him to love learning, to be curious, to know that he can succeed even if it takes a lot of work, to believe he can achieve his dreams, and to be able to think and make wise decisions.
But…that’s all pretty general.

@lici@ said...

# 4 - I agree that I don't want to be strict or create hardships just so kids will learn something. That seems cruel and, as said above, unnecessary. There are enough difficulties in life without well-intentioned parents creating arbitrary obstacles to overcome. In our culture, though, I think it's far more likely that parents go out of the way to smooth a bumpy road that could otherwise have a valuable lesson in it. And I don't want that, either.