The Story-Formed Child (A Review)

Dear Reader,

I had the privilege recently of attending the first ever (I believe) Story-Formed Child conference.  The main speaker was a woman named Sarah Clarkson who was homeschooled herself and has studied children’s literature. Her main thesis is that we are all living our own stories and that we need to play the parts of heroes in them. For those of us raising or teaching children, or even with children in our lives, we should be filling their lives with stories, great stories, so that they too can see themselves in this way and can learn to be heroes.

The day was very enjoyable, gave me a lot to think about, and was all very Charlotte Mason-friendly. It was not primarily about education and homeschooling but more about parenting or dealing with children in general. So while Charlotte was mentioned a number of times, this was not really an educational theory that I can conveniently compare to hers ;) But I do think she would have agreed to almost everything which was said.

The conference also made me think many times of the book Children of a Greater God by Glaspey which I have reviewed here. Glaspey gives a number of suggestions of how to raise moral children but reading good books is the major one.

Here, then, based on my notes, are the main points:

  • Great stories help children understand themselves to be heroes. Children need to see that life is a story and how to live it out.
  • Stories like Anne of Green Gables can change how we see the world.
  • Our culture has lost its stories and doesn’t know what to do with heroes. We have lost our overarching or meta-narrative.  It occurred to me as I heard this that we have lost our stories because we have lost our Storyteller. With no Supreme Being or belief in anything larger than ourselves, we are left with no purpose and therefore no story.
  • Narrative gives us the “why” to what we do. And again I would say we can have no “why” if we are all there is and are mere products of evolution.
  • If we aren’t deliberate in giving our kids stories, they will get them (or the lack of them) from the culture.
  • The two big ways we give our kids stories are through the Bible and literature. We are all part of the story of Scripture.  And here is a quote I love (paraphrase really as its hard to write the exact words in time): Literature is our human conversation through the ages about what it means to live well. I think Charlotte would smile at this.
  • God is the first Storyteller and we echo Him when we tell stories. From another later talk also came the idea that God much have imagined His creation before He began to create and that when we imagine and tell stories we are showing one way we are made in His image.  I have commented before that I find it striking that God chooses to communicate with us through words. We can also say He communicates through stories since that is a lot of what the Bible is and is also how Jesus taught.
  • Atmosphere matters. Beauty matters and we should surround our kid with it in nature, art, music and especially stories. Again, very CM.
  • Children need time to be alone, even to be bored. This is what Charlotte calls masterly inactivity.
  • Happy endings are good. Children need to see that they are going towards something beautiful.

There was one point I disagreed with. I don’t want to make too big a deal of it. I did e-mail the organizer and got assurance that we are not really on different pages theologically. Still, I think there are some larger implications so I think it is worth mentioning. It was said a few times that parents write their kids’ stories, that they are the first storytellers in their lives. I do obviously think parents have a lot of influence in their children’s lives. But I would not say this. I would say, rather, that God is the Storyteller in all our lives. Just as we cannot give our children saving faith so we cannot force them to learn, and so also we do not write their stories, not even the beginnings. In fact I think it is important for parents to realize that their kids are whole, complete people and that God is working in their lives and shaping them as much as He is in our own. And sometimes, as hard as it is, we need to step back and let Him do that. The woman I communicated with acknowledged that of course God is sovereign in our kids’ lives. And honestly, it is not so much the purely theological part that concerns me because I think most Christians can see that. But I see parents who either come between their children and God, usually with quite good intentions, or even more commonly who do not recognize that it is God who teaches them (Charlotte Mason again, the Holy Spirit is the great educator). Now, don’t get me wrong, they did not touch on these issues. I just see ways in which the comment that we write our kids’ stories could be taken too far and so I want to caution against it. But in everything else, I was really pleased with what I heard.

I don’t want you to think I’ve old you everything Sarah Clarkson has to say. I have barely touched on the second and third talks she gave, and at any rate it is worthwhile to hear her yourself if you get the chance. She also has a book out and I believe they aim to build up the website. I am very excited that they will be publishing out of print books and also offering book reviews.

Nebby

Shameless Promotion

Dear Reader,

My 12-year-old daughter has recently started a blog to help promote her business. She makes and sells knitted and crocheted things. Her specialties include girls’ headbands, water bottle holders (great for nature walks!) and wrist pets (felted pets that you can wear and take with you). She can make many other things as well and is branching out into baby onesies and kids’ t-shirts. Please check it out if you get a chance.

Selling at a local craft fair

Selling at a local craft fair

We will also be at the MassHope homeschool convention in Worcester, MA later this month. She will be selling in the “young entrepeneurs” section. Come say hello if you are there.

Nebby

 

Reading Comprehension, or What to Study and How to Study it

Dear Reader,

Do you do reading comprehension in your homeschool? Do you have a curriculum for it? In a Charlotte Mason Education, such things are not needed. Narration takes the place of reading comprehension. In narration, a child tells back what they have read as they see it. The key difference here is that the child decides what is important and chooses what to tell rather than having to anser preset questions in which the teacher (or textbook) decides what is important.

There is often a different in purpose as well. Through narration, the child processes the information and forms a relationship with it as they narrate. With reading comprehension, there may be a desire that the child learn the facts the teacher is asking about but it is also a kind of test to see if they have understood what they have read. Narration is not a test for the teacher’s benefit (so they can assign a grade) it is part of the learning process and is for the child’s benefit. Furthermore, Charlotte Mason would say that reading comprehension type questions are useless for really knowing what a child has learned. They may be able to parrot back facts but that does not mean that they have let the material sink deep into them. Here is how she puts it:

“The mind appears to have an outer court into which matter can be taken and again expelled without ever having entered the inner place where personality dwells. Here we have the secret of learning by rote, a purely mechanical exercise of which no satisfactory account has been given, but which leaves the patient, the pupil, unaffected.” (Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 202)

You, like I, have probably experienced this sort of thing — cramming for  a test only to forget it all the next day when it is no longer needed.

One may, in a Charlotte Mason education, give some sort of question as an impetus to narration but these should be open-ended questions such as “Tell me all you know about this character.” At times I think such questions may help the student to ferret out information they didn’t even know they had. I am thinking of examples such as when one reads a fictional account of life in colonial America and then is asked “tell me how they lived then.” Rather than just recounting the story, the child must now think about what they have read and pull together different parts to create  a picture of colonial life that was not just clearly laid out for them. But we must also recognize that whenever we ask questions, we are focusing attention, to some greater or lesser degree, on what we think is important, perhaps to the detriment of what the student actually got out of it all. Charlotte does not speak well of such questioning:

“Questions, as Dr. Johnson told us, are an intrusion and  a bore . . . ‘The mind can know nothing except what it can express in the form of an answer to a question put by the mind to itself.’ Observe, not a question put by an outsider, but, put by the mind to itself.” (p. 202)

Indeed, our questions often betray a lack of confidence in the child. We are not trusting them to interact with the material on their own and to be able to get their own ideas out of it. Charlotte says,

“He believes that children cannot understand well-written books and that he must make of himself a bridge between the pupil and the real teacher, the man who has written the book.” (p. 204)

Charlotte often compares education to a meal. The teacher provides the food, but the student must eat it. They cannot be force-fed nor can we control what they will put in their mouths. There is no coercion. In this analogy, our questions areas if we are trying to chew their food for them:

“We must feed the mind as the body fitly and freely; and the less we meddle with the digestive processes in the one as in the other the more healthy the life we shall sustain.” (p. 203)

We return again here to the idea that narration is how the student learns; it is not just for our (the teacher’s) benefit. And since it is how they learn, how they digest the material if you will, we should be very wary of stepping in and telling them how to do it.

I once knew a child who until the age of 5 couldn’t chew solid food. There was an undiagnosed medical issue and his mom would have to puree his food or serve him very soft things, like well-cooked pasta, long past toddlerhood. This is a normal diet for a one-year-old but not for a five-year-old, and over time his facial muscles weakened from lack of use and his face began to have a slack look to it. Fortunately, they eventually got a diagnosis and the problem was able to fix itself, but what if we are doing this same sort of thing to our kids intellectually? We are keeping them from hearty meats that they are old enough to comprehend and thereby weakening their intellectual muscles. They are not growing and developing as they should.

But, you may say, I put books to my child and they are unable or unwilling to narrate. I have to ask them specific questions or all I get is shrugs and “I don’t know”s. If a child has been used to a traditional school diet or dry textbooks and boring questions, it may be, as in my analogy above, that their intellectual muscles need a little building up. Beginning narrations with simple, easy to tell stories is always a good idea, even if the child is older. We have found Aesop’s fables wonderful for as and also the book by Thornton Burgess along the lines of “The Tale of so-and-do the such-and-such” (not his longer books like The Bird Book or The Animal Book).

Once a child has gotten used to the idea of and the practice of narration, we must make sure that we are feeding them real books and not cardboard simulations. Textbooks and, in my opinion, most books of the Usborne and DK variety are not good food. Charlotte says of such things:

“Persons can ‘get up’ the driest of pulverized text-books and enough mathematics for some public examination; but these attainments do not appear to touch the region of mind.” (p. 201)

In other words, even if a student can tell what they said or answer questions about them, they do not nourish and are not suitable food.

And if we are using a book that we think is higher quality and should be suitable but the child cannot seem to narrate it, I think one of the first questions we should ask is still is it a living book? Is it a living book for them? A book may appear to us to be living and a good choice but the surest test is to give it to the child to read. If they can narrate it well, and do so with enthusiasm, it is a living book. Here is how Charlotte sums up the whole matter:

“Given a book of literary quality suitable to their age and children will know how to deal with it without elucidation. Of course they will not be able to answer questions because questions are an impertinence which we all resent, but they will tell you the whole thing with little touches of individual personality in the narrative.” (p. 204)

It is really a wonderful thing to see (or hear) when it all comes together and they do narrate with enthusiasm. A Charlotte Mason education is a process, one that often seems long, but when things begin to come together it is very rewarding.

Nebby

A Common Curriculum?

Dear Reader,

With all the talk about the Common Core these days (most of it negative from what I read) I was intrigued to find that Charlotte Mason discussed the idea of a common curriculum in her sixth book, Towards a Philosophy of Education. She comes out in favor of such a curriculum:

“What we want is a common basis of thought, such a groundwork as we get from having read the same books, grown familiar with the same pictures, the same musical compositions, the same interests; when we have such a fundamental basis, we shall be able to speak to each other whether in public speaking or common talk . . . ” (p. 207)

The main idea here seems to be that a common body of knowledge, which comes from having read and studied the same materials, provides a common ground so that men (and women) may effectively communicate with one another. It enables the public discourse a society needs.

It should be noted that this sixth and last volume of Charlotte’s was written after the First World War. That seem to have been an event which really upset the civilized world. They seem to have seen something in themselves which they did not know was there and did not want to ever have to face again (oh, how little they knew what was yet to come!). This can be seen also in the writings of Charlotte’s contemporary and fellow educator, Maria Montessori. For Montessori the whole point of education was world peace.  While they overlapped, I believe Charlotte began before Montessori and certainly her earlier works were written before the global and ethical crisis of WWI. So while her main goal for education, that the child should learn to care and  have  a broad range of relationships with materials (to have their feet set in a wide room, as she says), remains the same, she seems here also to have adopted the idea, at least to a certain extent, that education can help fix the world’s problems.  That is, that a common education will lay the groundwork for a common understanding and a dialogue by which society’s leaders may work towards  . . . well, whatever they need to work towards. My impression is that more than anything these Europeans were shocked by how much killing there was and how much evil was in their own souls and they are seeking a way to once again be “civilized” and to never  again let the baser side of human nature show through to such an extent.

My point here is that I think Charlotte’s thought and especially the fervor with which she advocates for her view of education has altered in this volume. I am not sure that we find just the same idea in her earlier books and I don’t know if she would have argued for a common curriculum then.

But we may still find here some fodder for our own discussion of a common core curriculum. On the one hand, Charlotte makes a good point that a common body of knowledge helps us talk to one another. This is not the argument I hear for the Common Core. We seem to have more the idea that all children need a common foundation so that they are all on a level playing field. It is about educational equality, not about future political dialogue. One may also ask since the U.S. today is so large and diverse if such a common core is even feasible. Perhaps we are just too big and too different from one another. Or one may argue the opposite, that our bigness and diversity are exactly why we need a common body of knowledge.

But if we opt in favor of a common ground, we must then ask what common ground? What should children be learning and who decides? I am amused that Charlotte’s answer to her contemporaries was basically that her way should be adopted by everyone (hence the fervor we find in this volume):

“My bold proposal is that the Heads of Secondary Schools from the least to the greatest should adopt a scheme of work following the lines I have indicated  . . . and that they should do this for the nation’s sake.” (p.216)

Now if all schools in America all of a sudden had to use a Charlotte Mason education I would be very pleased. But our Common Core seems to be more about facts than ideas. I haven’t looked into it extensively, but I assume it is more of the same — dry facts — and does not include things like the reading of Shakespeare and Plutarch. Because when we talk of a common body of knowledge, we need to use knowledge in Charlotte’s sense, a relationship with the material, not just a bunch of details memorized. If we want to, say, avoid future wars, it does us no good to know when the War of 1812 happened or who was president then or even that Washington was burned. What we need is to understand the whys and hows behind it all, to know how people acted and why they did so and what in human nature led to those events.

If Charlotte Mason were here now, I would love to have her whip us all into shape. But she isn’t and I don’t now who else I would trust with such a responsibility. And you and I might not trust the same people. In some ways we can’t even begin to have a common core unless we already have enough in common to allow us to agree on what the requisite body of knowledge entails. And for that, I think America is just too diverse. I also tend to think that there is just so much to be known that we do need to spread ourselves out a bit. We may all need to learn to read and multiply but when it comes to things like reading novels, who is to say that I cannot read A Tale of Two Cities while you read David Copperfield? Surely we will both still benefit and we may all gain by sharing our different experiences more than if we all share the same experience.

I get where Charlotte is coming from in this section, at least I think I do. But I am not sure she was right even for her own day, much less so for ours. I agree that all children should have a broad, liberal base of knowledge. But I am not at all convinced that they all need to same base. I tend to think everything is more wonderful when we all have our own, slightly different bases.

Nebby

How to Win People Over

Dear Reader,

I wanted to share with you a couple of passages that struck me from Frank Boreham’s book Faces in the Fire. They are on slightly different topics, and actually in some ways are saying opposite things, but they both have to do with how we can manage to reach people.

Elucidating on “The Word became flesh,” Boreham talks about the necessity of putting a human presence behind our message. I do not want to downplay the power of God’s Word which we are told is sharper than a two-edged sword, for certainly it alone has brought men to repentance and faith all on its own, but in our ordinary lives I think we do best in winning those around us when our lives show forth the Word we preach. Here is how Boreham puts it:

“Generally speaking, you cannot make a man a Christian by giving him a Bible or posting him a tract. The New Testament lays it down quite clearly that the Christian man must accompany the Christian message. The Word must be presented in its proper human setting. Our missionaries all over the planet tell of the resistless influence exerted by gracious Christian homes, and by holy Christian lives, in winning idolaters from superstition. ” (pp. 270-71)

In the second passage, Boreham speaks not of winning over unbelievers but of successfully confronting a brother who is in sin. This is never an easy thing to do and there can be lots of emotions on either side. He recommends in this case, not necessarily a direct face to face confrontation, but a written letter as oftentimes the best approach:

“But if I go to that young man and abruptly introduce the matter to him, I at once put him in a false position, and greatly imperil my chance of success. We are face to face; I have spoken to him, and he, in common decency, must speak to me. It would be a thousand times better if, having opened my heart to him, I could withdraw before he uttered a single word. But as it is, I have forced him into a position in which he must say something. His judgement is not ripe, his mind is not made up, the whole subject is new to him, and yet my indiscretion has placed him in such a position that he is compelled to commit himself. He must say something without due consideration; I stand there like a highway robber, with my pistol pointed at his brow, and he must give me words immediately;  . . .  He speaks; and however he may guard his utterance, his final decision will inevitably be compromised by those hasty and immature sentences.

. . . I meant to do him good, and I have done him incalculable harm . . .

Now see how much better the postman manages the matter. I sit down at my desk and write exactly what I want to say . . . I pause to consider the exact word that I wish to employ . . . And the advantages that come to me in inditing the letter are shared by him in receiving it. He is alone, and therefore entirely himself. He is not disconcerted by the presence of an interviewer. He owes nothing to etiquette or ceremony. . . . If he is vexed at my intrusion into his private affairs, he has time to recover from his displeasure and to reflect that I am moved entirely by a desire for his welfare . . .” (pp.117-19)

Boreham has quite a bit more to say on the virtues of letter-writing, both in this particular case where one must confront  a friend, and in general. It really makes me long for the revival this now hardly used practice. E-mail with its immediacy does not seem to engender the same thought and careful choosing of words. Isn’t it funny how we always say “you can’t tell one’s tone in e-mail; it leads to misunderstandings” but this is never said of letters? Now more than ever a letter says that the sender has taken time and composed their thoughts whereas an e-mail so often says “I don’t have time for you.” An e-mail gets lost in the inbox; a letter, even  admist piles of junk mail, is an event. It is, as Boreham goes on to say, something to be savored and not rushed through.

Nebby

Romance and Christianity

Dear Reader,

Though my oldest children are now 12 and 13, we haven’t given a lot of thought to dating around here. Thankfully, they still seem far from interested in the idea. I know the trend among Christians seems to be to forbid dating, at least as our culture knows it, and to prefer “courtship”, a situation in which the young man spends time with the girl and her family and there is not much one-0n-one going out and the goal is always marriage.

I don’t know what we will do with our kids, and I don’t think this model is a bad one. But it can seem kind of, well, unromantic, can’t it? I am a product of ’80s movies and while I know on one level that Christian courtship is still about love, it seems to lose some of the flair and passion that we associate with romance and falling in love. Let’s say that while the young couple still gets together through their own choice and mutual decision, there is an added layer of practicality thrown on top. They need to be well-suited. Her parents need to approve. Spontaneity is lost.

So I was interested to find while reading on of my favorite authors, Frank Boreham, the assertion that it is Christianity that has allowed romance to flourish in the world:

“Only in a land that has felt the spell and influence of Jesus would sweethearting, as we know it, be possible.” (Faces in the Fire, Kindle Loc. 2142)

Boreham’s point is that throughout history marriage has been entered into for so many reasons – “by barter, by compact, by conquest . . . ” — that marrying purely for love is a pretty radical idea, historically speaking. Furthermore, he attributes its rise to Christianity.  And one can certainly see that marriage, as it is spoken of in the Bible and particularly the New Testament, is very much a loving union.

I am not sure how far I want to go with this, but I think it is interesting that while we tend to downplay romance as something too emotional and detrimental to our values, that the idea of it comes originally from Christian roots.

How does this affect what our policy on kids dating will be? I have no idea. But if you want to tell me how you have approached it with your kids, I am all ears.

Nebby

CM on Children and Church

Dear Reader,

The upcoming Charlotte Mason Blog Carnival will be on the section of her third book called “Some Unconsidered Aspects of Religious Training.”  There is a lot one could discuss here, and a lot of it I probably have touched on in the past. I have, for example, posts on “A Few Thoughts from CM on Religious Education,” “CM on the KNowledge of God,” and “Let’s Talk about Sunday School,”  among many others.

But this time what I would like to focus on is how we instill religious habits in children. Now I am the first to say that a habit is useless if it is only skin-deep. This is particularly true of religious habits. It is our hearts God wants, not our outward obedience only. But He does want our outward obedience as well and I have largely been won over by Charlotte’s emphasis on habit training. I don’t know if praying with our children every day or ordering them to read their Bibles will result in their ultimate salvation, but they will be a lot better off if they have these things as well established habits in their youth. How many adults have you heard complain that they struggle with daily prayer and Bible reading? These things are not the be-all and end-all of Christian life but to have them well-established as habits early on frees one up to struggle with other things later on ;)

Charlotte begins her discussion of religious habits with “the thought of God,” that is, that the child should be in the habit of thinking of His Creator continually. Charlotte speaks as if this is the natural inclination of children and we grown-ups must only encourage it and allow it to continue. I am not sure I would agree with that presupposition. I have a more negative view of children’s innate states than Charlotte does. But I do think that for children raised in godly homes, it may seem this way since they have heard of Him since their infancy. And in many ways children are more ready to receive the idea of God than their elders. Doesn’t Christ say that we should all be as children to enter is kingdom?

But how do we instill this habit in our children? Even more than in other areas, I think the power of example cannot be underrated here. We must ourselves be mindful that God is always with us, thanking Him for the good in our lives, turning to Him in our troubles, and speaking of Him as we go through our days. Of course this can be done very artificially and I do not mean that we should be always preaching to our children. Rather, we should learn this habit for ourselves and not be afraid to speak our own thoughts aloud to our children so they may come to know that we also rely upon Him in everything.

If possible, it is also good to let them see the example of other adults. Cultivating relationships with older people in the church who are not related to them can benefit children a lot. One of the best things we ever did was to regularly attend a prayer meeting at our old church. Most of the time there were not other children there. But our kids were welcome and able to sit through it all (very easy after sitting through Sunday service actually) and I think they got a lot from just hearing other adults pray and discuss the Bible.

Charlotte goes on to speak of having a reverent attitude in prayer and worship. I have to confess that we have often failed here. We thank God before meals but often the child praying rushes through a brief “Thank you God for this food” and sometimes doesn’t even wait till everyone else is seated before praying. So I am convicted that no matter how hungry we are we need to slow down this part of our day and make sure it is done respectfully.

When it comes to Bible reading, Charlotte extols the use of the Scriptures themselves rather than Bible stories edited for children. For the most part I agree with her on this. We did make use of The Beginner’s Bible when our children were younger but I think the earlier one can move on to the text itself the better. Of course, in all areas we seek to use real living books for our kids, but, when it comes to God’s Word, this is even more important.

Charlotte next speaks of hymn singing. We do not do hymns around here but sing only Psalms in worship. I am not very musical myself (a vast understatement) but my husband leads us in Psalm-singing as a part of our family worship after dinner most nights.

Lastly, Charlotte speaks of “Sunday-keeping.” We are not the strictest Sabbath keepers though we do strive to make some distinction between the Lord’s day and other days. We do not, for example, go to stores or restaurants on the Sabbath (unless there is some necessity, like needing medicine). We also do not let the children do computer games on Sunday (mostly because we have one child who could easily be addicted to the computer screen). But we do play games and watch some TV and don’t restrict their play in other ways.

One final topic which I would like to touch on, though Charlotte does not give it its own heading, is the need to participate in the corporate worship of the church. I have written on this before, but I find it incredibly valuable to the children’s spiritual development to have them sit in worship (all of worship) as early on as they can. I find for most children who start from birth, they can usually make it through a service by age 3 if not before. Of course, if you start later, it make take a while for them to get used to the idea. We do let our kids do things during the sermon like draw or color.  Quiet toys may be appropriate for babies and toddlers but I like to limit them as much as  possible. I don’t want to belabor the point, but I just don’t see how separating children into Sunday school classes or children’s church while the adults worship is going to prepare them to be worshippers themselves. My observation from my friends is that after 12 years of Sunday school they still don’t feel their kids are ready for grown-up worship while my own children who have been in worship since infancy do fine by two and half years old.

How about you? What do you do to encourage religious habits in your children? What has worked and what hasn’t?

Nebby

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers