http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-summer/false-promise-classical-education.asp

I have actually enjoyed reading Ms. VanDamme’s articles (e.g How To Teach Your Child: A Necessary Order To Knowledge ) and I believe a logical way to teach children is to utilize the hierarchy of knowledge (the concrete perceptions to concept to abstract conceptions) as described by Ms. VanDamme for use by elementary children and as described in detail by Ms. Rand in Objectivist Epistemology. However, I have to wonder if she read the WTM or is going off of reviews of the book. True Trivium Method utilized in early American history at the grammar schools did throw information at very young children (e.g. memorizing not learning Latin) without giving them a base first. However, I believe that the methodology of the Well Trained Mind is only remotely linked to true Trivium; and that, WTM utilizes the Hierarchy of Knowledge method in teaching Language Arts and History; but that, it is less well utilized in teaching science.

The grammar level history spine and related books introduce the “What’s, Where’s, and When’s” of history in a story format which has been used throughout history to pass along information. It does not introduce abstract concepts that children must just believe but is about events that they can understand such as people farming, building, and killing. The “real” books that are read by the children help fill in the gaps and make the history more real to the child. Studying history in chronological form reveals the progress (and backsliding) of civilization and how things build from basic to more advanced. Nothing more than narration of what was heard is expected at this level and the memorization required is of facts they have learned such as lists of presidents. A child listens to Charles Dickens to paint a picture in their mind of the time period under study; not to understand poverty, economics, etc.

The logic level history spine is a collection of facts along a chronological framework. More advanced children, who understand “what” happened, now look for connections between these concrete events to find out the “How” (How did the development of agriculture affect the ancient cultures). This is the formation of Abstractions from Concretes. Again, the books being read are not theoretical books but books about the people being studied - A very concrete idea. The parent may discuss how the actions of the characters compare to the actions the child might have done but that is to make everything more real; not to tell them what to believe without backing it up. If the parent wants to point out a character flaw then putting the child into a discussion would be the optimal way to help them see it in concrete terms. At no time have I heard WTM recommend “complex, controversial, political debate” in 5th grade.

A child who has been grounded in the “What’s and How’s” is now ready to discuss the “Why’s” (e.g. Why did Hitler choose an enemy for his people to rally against). At this point, I support the use of the Great Books. Before they start college and professors begin to drop names and tell them what the philosopher meant, the children should have background knowledge of their own interpretation of what the philosophers said.

As with history, the study of language arts in WTM begins with the concrete fundamentals (e.g. the sounds of letters and the rules of grammar) and ends with the children able to write concise, fact supported opinion on paper.

The science section is probably the place where Ms. Van Damm’s criticism falls most soundly. In this section, WTM deviates from its focus on learning the parts and then putting it together. I thought the biology section was good as it focuses on observable facts, but I would hold off till third grade. During the grammar stage, I believe children should be learning how to observe and discriminate and categorize. If a child can look at a shape and pull out the triangles (and name them) and the quadrilaterals (and name them) then I believe they are ahead of a child who knows what an atom is. At the logic level, I believe that a book such as Joy Hakim’s History of Science is a great choice. Science experiments can be placed at strategic times to reinforce what is being learned. Now the child will discover what natural observable fact (or sometime lucky guess) led the scientist to make a theory about something not observable at the time. At the rhetoric level, the child is ready to read Aristotle’s Physics or Einstein’s Relativity if they have been taught over the years to tear books down to their basic ideas and figure out the parts (e.g. who, what, where, when, why, how). But, this is my own opinion. My own daughter has no interest in science (she has read the political Great Books) so I’m not sure of the reading level of these books but base my opinion I have that by 9th to 10th grade the children should be through with their basic education and moving onto advanced math, science, and philosophy.

I use all three methods: Well Trained Mind, Great Books, and Hierarchy of Knowledge. I believe that each is fantastic if used at the proper place and time (e.g. WTM for history and language arts, Hierarchy of Knowledge for science, and Great Books for Rhetoric level students). I would actually like to hear Ms. VanDamme and Ms. Bauer discuss the similarities and differences between their two methodologies. Actually, I would really like to see Ms. VanDamme and Ms. Hakim write the science section of WTM with a list of spines, books, and experiments.

Taxing as Control Not income

I like this cartoon. My daughter found it for me. My husband is trying to figure out exactly how much the house spent on salaries, staff, and facilities while they were debating how to best punish AIG executives for expecting to be paid what they agreed to work for.

http://xkcd.com/558/

Glen Beck

I've just been over at the Glen Beck 9/12 site. I agree with most of what he says but one part seems strange. I began to address the issue to a person who wanted clarification about whether he was excluded from the site since he was an atheist. Most of the people responding said that the second value of the list was not that important. I disagree but was unable to post my comment as they closed down the site so here I'll just tell it myself so that at least one person will have seen this thought.


It is relevant since he thought it important enough to list in the top 9.

The people on this list may allow you to participate in their discussion but according to the Gallup poll of 2007 over half the population would vote for anyone but an atheist. If you are a public atheist do you think you will ever be allowed to participate in the leadership of a group that holds that you can't support America unless you believe in a deity?

As someone posted in this discussion in a blanket statement that was expected to be just common sense "a lot of people without faith have no ambition to share our principles." I have listened to several rants from both avid Christians and apathetic Christians about how atheists are un-American and at the root of all America's problems. It is one of the few prejudices that are still acceptable in polite society and used in Statements of Faith or values by groups to keep the Atheist quiet....or out.

All of those other values are about being self-reliant and not forcing other people to support you. They are near and dear to my heart but the second one tells me that my kind aren’t really welcome. What does a belief in the supernatural have to do with self-reliance?