Grammar, Logic, & Rhetoric in a CM Education

Neo-classical models of education have so co-opted the terms Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric that I admit I have tended to shy away from them. If rightly understood, however, these can be helpful categories for those of us trying to follow Charlotte Mason’s philosophy of education.

A few definitions are in order first: Grammar is about mastering the basics of a field. It involves information but also basic skills. Logic builds from the basics. It is about not facts but understanding. And finally rhetoric builds further still so that one can not just understand but argue. It creates something new.

My understading is that these three were not historically distinct stages but that, since Dorothy Sayers first wrote “The Lost Tools of Learning,” that certain schools of (neo-) classical thought have separated them out so that children are segregated into stages of learning. The younger students are fed only grammar; in the middle years logic is the goal; and rhetoric is saved for the upper years.

Though Mason did not know this staged variety of “classical” eduaction such as we have it today, I think we can be confident that she would have rejected it. The 11th of her 20 principles tells us that children have all the faculties they need to learn. They do not need to be taught to reason.

Still there can be some value in recognizing that, in every field of human knowledge, we can see levels of understanding that do correspond to these three labels. The grammar stage, that which focuses on the facts and skills, is, unfortunately, too often just what our society offers as the whole of education. Our classical brethern are right to reject this approach and to push children to go beyond mere information to real understanding. Yet while grammar should not be the whole of education, it is also not unimportant. As theistic people, we believe in Truth (capital “T”) so we must also believe in “truths” (little “t”). Accuracy matters. We can have a lot of grand ideas but if they aren’t built on a foundation of truth they will not get us very far — or at least not very far in the right direction.

A podcast I heard recently talked about logic as being able to tell others about a subject. This goes beyond information because, as good CM educators know, there is so much that goes into being able to put one’s thoughts into words and convey them to another person. This is not parroting; it is real mental work. This is narration. In a Charlotte Mason education, this kind of logic is not separated out or saved for later. It is there from the beginning as children are asked to narrate what they read and see and hear. In every subject, at every stage, they are called upon for logic. And while that informational grammar level is important, most CM parents have had the experience of seeing their children leap ahead in the logic while missing some of the key grammar as a child excitedly narrates a book on George Washington all the while calling him Ben Franklin. (There is a time perhaps for correcting such mistakes but let us not too easily destroy the child’s confidence and enthusiasm by harping on the grammar errors in the midst of some good logic.)

Rhetoric goes to another level still. It makes arguments. It creates something new, something perhaps no one else has thought or said before. From a Mason framework, we might say that this is where the Science of Relations lies. Rhetoric draws connections; it pulls things together. It too is there from the beginning in a CM education. Education itself is rhetoric (CM’s 12th principle). The number and variety of Relations will increase as the child’s base of knowledge (Grammar) does and as their understanding builds (Logic), but Rhetoric is never held apart as something for when one is older. Mason expects even younger children to be able to think in this way, albeit at more age-approriate levels.

So while we may reject the staged approach the neo-classical education imposes, it can be helpful for CM eduactors to appreciate the levels that are inherent in knowing. In every subject, we must strive for accuarte information, real understanding, and a level of connection that allows new insight. A person will grow in all these areas, but they must not be deprived of them at any age.

Book Review: Against Worldview

There is a lot to like about Simon P. Kennedy’s Against Worldview: Reimagining Christian Formation as Growth in Wisdom. [1] Though this slim volume comes from the world of Christian schooling and not homeschooling, it looks to two of my favorite thinkers, Herman Bavinck and Charlotte Mason (p. 23), for inspiration.

Kennedy reacts against the worldview movement which has been so popular in Christian education. He sees its flaws and hopes to provide an alternative, not by abandoning but by reworking the concept of worldview. Though the homeschooling world has perhaps been less universally influenced by worldview culture, there are certainly many curricula marketed to homeschoolers that rely on this approach. I agree with Kennedy’s critiques of it and I like a lot of what he proposes as an alternative. There are a few aspects of his proposal that I would take issue with, however, and, though I can see Mason’s influence on his thought, he departs from her ideas in some key ways.

Kennedy’s Ideas

Kennedy’s main critique of the worldview approach is that it simply does not present a realistic epistemology. Which is to say: this is not how people actually learn (p. 6). Kennedy begins with a history of the concept of worldview, showing that it has been combative. That is, Christians began to talk of having a “Christian worldview” when they felt the need to counter some very non-Christian ways of thinking and living. The Dutch reformed tradition, which has had an outsized influence on Christian education, in particular has had a very black-and-white “what has Jerusalem to do with Athens”[2] take on the subject. So Van Til, for instance, took an approach to education based on antithesis, on rejecting all things “secular.” This has left little room for Christian schools to even think about educating non-Christian children.

One of the downsides of this understanding of worldview is that it has been very limiting. It assumes that there is A Christian worldview. Kennedy rightly argues that, while there are undoubtedly right and wrong in how we perceive the world, that there are yet “as many apprehensions of that truth as there are people” (p. 16; cf. p. 95).[3] Because our knowledge of God and His creation is ultimately about relationship, it is unique to the individual, just as my relationship with my mother may not be the same as my brother’s. The approach of much of Christian education, because it has started with a combative stance, has been to assume one worldview and to seek to impose it from the top down. This approach has also been very much an intellectual exercise, assuming that if one can answer a set of questions correctly that one will be well-formed (p. 40). Thus it takes a very narrow view of the person.

The analogy which Kennedy presents is that of a mosaic which is assembled piece by piece (p. 20). The workers do not necessarily see the whole plan. The designer (=God) knows the whole; they work on parts. This is a bottom-up approach to education. It is inductive rather than deductive (p. 47). We do not start with one right worldview but with pieces which are built into a worldview that may be, to some extent at least, unique to the student. Kennedy spends some time reviewing theories of epistemology (how we know). He follows Bavinck in opting for the approach known as Realism. This is an approach with exalts neither the intellect nor the senses but relies on both. Like the approach of both Meek and Mason, it is relational. We assume a world that makes sense and that we can accurately perceive. Our intellect then processes and sorts what we perceive. We organize the information we take in and so build a picture for ourselves. This, for Kennedy, is the process of education. Worldview for Kennedy is not the starting point but the end point of a Christian education. We move from the particular to the universal as we make connections between the different pieces and see patterns (p. 66). He quotes Charlotte Mason who called education “the science of relations” (p. 69).

Continuing his mosaic analogy, Kennedy see the material of education, the tiles of the mosaic, as pieces of wisdom. He distinguishes two kids of wisdom, practical and spiritual (p.85). He believes that we acquire these two in different ways. Practical wisdom is a lot of what we traditionally think of as education; it is math and science and history and literature. For Kennedy, the student and teacher work in partnership to build his worldview mosaic using pieces of practical wisdom (pp. 14, 17). Spiritual wisdom, he says, “cannot be gained in the same way” (p. 91). The teacher is not involved directly in the acquiring of spiritual wisdom but it is a matter of God working in the student. It “isn’t something we can control” (p. 91).

Practically speaking, this means the job of the Christian teacher is not to weave Bible verses into every subject but to know his discipline and to teach it well (pp. 96-7). Kennedy argues for a focus on the humanities (p. 112), the use of great books (p. 111), and teaching Christian history and literature (p. 113).[4]

Analysis

If you are a fan of Charlotte Mason’s philosophy of education as I am, you are probably recognizing a lot of her ideas in Kennedy’s work. There are certainly many points of overlap and certain points on which he credits her directly. Among the more Mason-y elements we may count: the approach to epistemology which views education as the science of relations; the emphasis on the individual; and the role of God as the “master craftsman” (p. 47) in the educational process.

There are, however, some points where Kennedy seems to diverge from Mason, perhaps unwittingly so. Possibly because of his focus on the Christian school (though Mason also was a teacher and established schools), Kennedy still places quite a large portion of the work of education on the teacher. As I have argued, for Mason the teacher is very much in the background. Her role is to spread an educational feast but then to step back. Mason argues strenuously that the teacher is not to have undue influence on her students. Kennedy’s position is no doubt a move in the right direction. Many Christian approaches to education lay the primary burden on the teacher. For Kennedy, education is a partnership with teacher and student working together (p. 22). Education is a “team construction project” (p. 64) and the teacher’s own worldview still presumably has a lot of influence. He does not go all the way over to Mason’s position which is that the student must do the work of learning through the Holy Spirit. Kennedy’s understanding is much more like Mason’s when he speaks of how we acquire “spiritual wisdom” for here he leaves the teacher out and acknowledges that we cannot control the outcomes. For Mason this is true of all of education, no matter the subject. We never control the outcomes.

Kennedy sees two kinds of learning because he sees two kinds of wisdom. This is not a distinction Mason makes. In fact, she deliberately rejects such a distinction in kinds of knowing. Though he does not use the words, Kennedy distinguishes between sacred and secular subjects. The former is what he calls spiritual wisdom and the latter is his practical wisdom. Mason erases this distinction. For her there are no secular subjects because all knowledge ultimately comes from God. Yet she does not end up where the worldview curricula are. She would not weave Bible verses into chemistry class because she would not see the need. We don’t have to make chemistry seem more godly and we do not have to teach “Christian chemistry.” For Mason, chemistry is inherently sacred because it is from God, as all wisdom is. Kennedy says something very similar (p. 97), but he draws a harder line between “spiritual” and “practical” subjects and extends this distinction to how we learn them. This assumption of two ways of learning is not something he substantiates.

In general, I like the language Kennedy uses of building up a worldview. (It sounds much like Esther Lightcap Meek’s epistemology.) I am not sure, however, that Kennedy makes the process as clear as it could be both with regard to the role of the teacher and the scope of the project. He mentions, almost in passing, that the teacher must still “scaffold” subjects (p. 101) by providing some framework that comes from her own greater understanding and presumably her personal worldview. This feels dangerous. How the teacher and student work together is not well-defined and I feel the need for guardrails lest the teacher, even inadvertently, impose her worldview on the student.

I am unclear as well on the end of the process. Kennedy seems to place a line between childhood and adulthood. As a child, the student is building his worldview but he is not necessarily using it in any way. There is then presumably a point when it is more or less complete and he can step back and appreciate the whole and begin to use it to live his life. Like Mason, I am less inclined to draw a clear line between childhood and adulthood. Because growth in knowledge is building relations, it is not a process that ends, or even substantially changes.

This raises the question of the aim of education. Kennedy is unclear in how he frames the goal of education. He speaks of it as building a Christian worldview (pp. 14, 17, 98) which feels rather limited. In other places, he speaks more broadly of the formation of “souls, hearts, and minds” (p. 21) and “growth in wisdom” (p. 23). Perhaps he means the same thing by these but the language of worldview seems to unduly narrow the focus.[5]

Conclusions

I understand that Kennedy is speaking to an audience which has been immersed in Christian worldview education. He chooses not to completely abandon their language, though he might be better off if he did so. Against Worldview pushes us in the right direction. My main critique would be that it doesn’t go far enough. Kennedy presents something of a hybrid vision. The chapters on the history of the term worldview and on epistemology are helpful. I am persuaded by his argument for Realism and I like how he, following Mason, emphasizes education as relational. It feels, however, like there is more to be done on the practical aspects of how all this can be applied. The distinction Kennedy makes between “spiritual” and “practical” knowledge and how we know them is not well-substantiated. He has not shown me that there are two ways of knowing here. Coming as he does from the side of Christian schooling, he may perhaps be biased to hold on to a higher role for teachers as a profession. I think he would do better to take Mason’s ideas more seriously. She did manage to have successful schools which allowing the teacher as great a direct influence.

---

Notes:

[1] Lexham Press, 2024. And a big thank you to the reader who recommended this book. See also my recent post, inspired by this book, on Worldviews and Frameworks.

[2] A question first asked by Tertullian in the 2nd century AD.

[3] One of my favorite authors, Frank Boreham, has an essay on this in which he speaks of it as a ready-made suit. Though we may all be Christians, our parents’ ideas may not quite fit us correctly.

[4] That is, not making all history and literature Christian-y but specifically teaching Church history and Christian literature as their own subjects.

[5] And I would argue that education as transformation is an even better way to think of it.

Worldview vs. Atmosphere

After reading Against Worldview: Reimagining Christian Formation as Growth in Wisdom by Simon P. Kennedy, I have been thinking about worldview and its place in Christian education. The language of “worldview” has been big in Christian education for some time. Kennedy’s book examines the flaws with the worldview approach as it has been implemented and seeks to reconstruct it in a more useful way. In my own philosophy of education, I have used the language of a “framework” to try to get at something like “worldview” but with some distinctions. Charlotte Mason, whose philosophy my own is largely based upon, gets at something similar when she speaks of “atmosphere.” We are all trying to get at something essential, and yet also to keep that thing in its right place.

A “framework,” or in Mason’s language atmosphere, is not about math problems based on the dimensions of Noah’s ark or books on apologetics. It is the attitudes and beliefs of the people and things amongst whom the child lives and learns. “Framework” is not meant to suggest that it is a bare-bones things but that it is structural to what we do. It is a scaffolding. We rely upon it, but we do not put our focus on it. It undergirds what we do, but we don’t necessarily spend a lot of time talking about it directly. What I’d like to look at today is: (1) how we get the framework and what it should look like; and (2) how it impacts how we educate our children and when we should center it versus letting it be the unseen scaffolding.

What’s Your Framework?

Maybe you have been homeschooling children for years and have never thought about your “worldview” or “framework” and are wondering if you are missing a vital component. The good news is you are probably not. For Christian parents educating their own children, the framework will in many cases come naturally. You will have it even without thinking about it. Another analogy is helpful here: that of the fish in the water. As they say, the fish doesn’t know he is in the water; he just inhabits it. That is how it is for many of us. We may not know we have a Christian worldview but we do. We will create that atmosphere in our children’s lives because it is our own atmosphere. We impart it to them every time we have family worship or take them to church or pray for a sick friend.

Now some of you who weren’t raised in a Christian home yourselves and/or who are younger in the faith may still feel like you struggle with these things and that you aren’t creating the right environment in your home. I have a few suggestions. The first is: be honest. It’s okay if your kids see you struggle. That in itself can actually be really good. The second is: work on your own life first. Practice “spiritual disciplines.” These are not specialized skills; they are the ordinary means by which God works in His people. So if you don’t have a good church, find one and go every week. Get to know people there. Pray — individually, with your kids, as a family, with your church. Pray about everything, big and small. If you can, find ways that your kids can be in small groups, Bible studies, or prayer meetings with all ages. Find opportunities for them to hear how adult Christians talk and share prayer requests and pray for one another. Don’t be afraid to expose them to the truly difficult things that people need prayer for (with only modest carve-outs for adult content). Make family worship part of your life. If every day is too much, aim for 2-3 times a week. Be thankful to God. Read books that challenge you and draw you closer to Him. Appreciate His creation. Go out in nature. Look at art. Listen to music. Read good books. (In that article in the framework I also gave some other practical suggestions.)

What we want is not for children to be able to articulate a Christian worldview but for them to automatically pray when they have a need, for them to give thanks when something goes well, and when there is trouble for them to know that that too is from God and to trust Him in it. Again, we just want a Christian way of viewing the world to be the water they inhabit.

I would add that for those of us who are reformed, it is also important that this be a distinctly reformed water. The reformed view of the sovereignty of God, the belief that He in His providence governs all things and that nothing is out of His control, is essential to the framework. Unfortunately, there is a lot out there in the culture of American Christianity which says the opposite, which says that God couldn’t possibly will for a child to get cancer or a dog to get run over. These are hard things to say. They are hard to live with. But a world where God isn’t in control of it all is even scarier. The problem is often that other Christians (or Christian books and media) will give contrary messages. It comes from a good place because they don’t want to ascribe to God things they consider evil, but it is wrong and we should guard against it. Which is not to say that we never read people we disagree with — we absolutely should — but we also need to be aware of the other “waters” that our kids are in and make sure that we are providing correctives to those. (I am thinking here of things like well-meaning but untrained youth group leaders who might inadvertently be conveying wrong ideas about who God is.)

Often the problem is not with one’s stated theology but with the practical aspects of how we react when things do go wrong. My favorite book of 2025 was The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs. I recommend all Christians read this.[1] The Puritans spoke of “practical atheists,” Christians who believe the right things but act as if God doesn’t exist or isn’t in control and can’t see. This is what we all need to guard our hearts against.

When and How to Look at the Framework

I hope you are getting the sense that the framework is just that; it is a the structure in which we live but we don’t need to be constantly drawing attention to it. For the most part, we don’t even need to think about it overly much. We live among people with different frameworks, however, and at some point that becomes hard to avoid.

I write mostly for homeschoolers and I have been assuming thus far that you are educating your own kids and that you have a lot of control over the waters in which they swim most of the day. This does not mean, however, that the rest of you whose kids are in secular or Christian schools can’t still provide the framework your kids need. It is harder when more of their time is in other environments but I know many kids whose parents seem to be doing it quite well. If your kids are not homeschooled, you may find that you need to have overt conversations about those who hold other views with them at a younger age. You will definitely have to make more of an effort to carve out time for those familial spiritual disciplines but also just to be together and to make sure they see how you are living out your Christian walk. A word of caution as well to those whose kids are in Christian schools — don’t assume that their water is your water. If it is, that’s great, but it can be harder to draw distinctions with those we disagree with when they are closer to us on most things. Make sure you know not just what your child is being taught but what the atmosphere of the school is.

All of us, no matter how our kids are educated, live in a society which no longer has a Christian atmosphere (if it ever did, which is debatable). Our children are going to realize that not everyone thinks and acts as we do. We should absolutely address any questions they have in age appropriate ways when they arise. For the most part a “this is how our family does it” approach that focuses on saying positively what we believe and do rather than critiquing others’ approaches is the way to go.

I have talked about what is hard for those whose kids go to brick-and-mortar schools. Here is what can be hard for homeschoolers: overly isolating so that our kids don’t encounter those with other ways of thinking. Our kids need to know people different from them and learn to recognize and navigate differences while they have you there to talk them through it. There is a way in which being able to draw the lines and say “this is what we do” or “that is not what we believe” actually makes the home framework stronger.

If you get out into the world at all, or read challenging books, or turn on a TV, you will at some point encounter those operating under different frameworks. While most of the time the framework should be an unseen part of the atmosphere, there is a time to deliberately teach our kids to see and evaluate frameworks. I would suggest that that time starts in their tween or early teen years. Studies have shown that kids are not ready to think about things like grammar and algebra until age 12 or so and my inclination is that it is the same for frameworks. In all of these areas, what we are doing is thinking about the systems behind things. In a Charlotte Mason education kids read well-written books and they narrate and do copywork and dictation using well-written passages but they do not do any formal grammar until at least middle school. We are looking at doing the same wort of thing with their “worldview” education. For many years it is in the background. They are being immersed in good things but they are not being asked to think about them on a higher level. And then at some point their brains are ready for that thinking.[2]

How then does one go about teaching them to look for the frameworks? Many will do so naturally, just as they have been imbibing the rules of English grammar without any formal instruction. If your child has questions or just notices that others are approaching the world differently at any point, you can absolutely talk about it then. You don’t need to wait till a certain age and it’s okay if younger siblings hear the conversations you have with older kids. That is very good for them; it is building their own scaffolding. When you do want to take some time to look at frameworks head-on, I would suggest that the best way is through books and movies. These allow us to examine others’ presuppositions without criticizing people we know. They are also often wonderful fodder for “worldviews” because their creators are trying to say something about the world and how it works. They are trying to put their ideas out there so we don’t always need to dig too deeply.

I have two favorite resources for this. The first is Deconstructing Penguins by Lawrence and Nancy Gladstone. The authors are not Christians (as far as I know). They tell the story of a book group for kids and walk you through the books which they studied. This is a book for you as the parent to read so you can then recreate the book group with your own kids.[3] I recommend using books that are below your children’s normal reading level. The point is not that the books will be hard for them to read but that we will go to a level deeper than they have before.

My second suggestion is Grant Horner’s Meaning at the Movies. Horner is a Christian and walks through different genres and talks about how they can point us to God. There are specific movie suggestions. High school students can read the book and then you can watch the movies together and discuss them as a family. You may find it becomes hard not to think about the ideas behind everything you watch.

I would suggest as well that we lay the groundwork for this “framework-study” with how we do picture study when our kids are younger. I particularly enjoyed resources that taught us how to look at artwork. We learned about techniques that artists use like creating a triangular structure within a piece that draws the viewer’s attention in a certain direction.[4] In art a creator imbeds structures that try to make us look at the painting in a certain way. It is the scaffolding of the painting, if you will, that influences us on a subconscious level. So too authors and movie makers have imbedded scaffoldings. What we are trying to do is to teach our children to see those and from there to recognize that, whether they know it or not, everyone has a framework that scaffolds how they perceive the world. Seeing this in art, without ever using the language of worldview or framework, prepares us to see it in books and movies later on.

Other books we have used that helped us see the presuppositions behind people’s work include:

• Francis Schaeffer. How Should We Then Live. Schaeffer was himself a big proponent of “worldview.” Kennedy argues that Schaeffer had a very militant take on worldview but I really liked his book. There is a video version as well which can be good to watch with teens.
• J.F. Baldwin. The Deadliest Monster. Another one from the worldview-camp. Baldwin shows how the ideas behind Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are fundamentally different. I only had my kids read sections of this one.
• R.C. Sproul. The Consequences of Ideas. Sproul is reformed. His book is similar to some of Wiker’s (see below) though not quite as engaging.
• Benjamin Wiker. 10 Books that Screwed up the World and 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read. Like Sproul’s, these are books on ideas and how they have influenced our world. Wiker is Catholic though I think he is the better writer of the two.
• Benjamin Wiker. The Darwin Myth. I like a lot of Wiker’s books, but this is my favorite. Wiker shows how Darwin was influenced by the water he swam in and how evolution didn’t need to be the godless, all-about-competition thing he made it.

---

Notes:

[1] I like the updated (but not abridged) edition by Modern Puritan. For an overview, you can find notes I made for a book study on it here.

[2] I want to distinguish what I am saying here from neo-classical education (of which I am not particularly a fan). I am not saying that kids enter a formal logic stage or that we need to teach them to think in new ways. I agree with Mason that they come equipped with the faculties they need. It is never the case that we teach them to think. At the same time, a 14-year-old is going to be ready for some things with a 6-year-old isn’t. We can acknowledge that there is growth without the staged approach some neo-classical people take. See CM on Stages and Stages in CM & Classical.

[3] You can read how I did this with my own kids in these posts: Mr. Popper’s Penguins; Babe; Charlotte’s Web; Bull Run; Animal Farm; Lost Horizon

[4] Art resources we used can be found in this post. I particularly recommend the Sister Wendy videos (prescreen; she’s a nun but there is some adult content) and How to Read a Painting by Patrick De Rynck.

Mason & Reformed Presbyterian Theology

How Charlotte Mason’s Philosophy of Education Does and Doesn’t Fit with Reformed Presbyterian Theology

I want to be clear from the start that Charlotte Mason was not reformed. She was a member of the Church of England and her personal theology seems to tend toward the Arminian. Though I do not doubt her faith or salvation, there are points we would disagree on and these do have a bearing on how we think about education.

Having said which, I do think Mason’s philosophy of education more than any other fits well with a Reformed Presbyterian theology, albeit with some important caveats. What I’d like to do today is just to look at some of the ways in which Mason’s philosophy of education is and isn’t a good fit for those of us from the reformed tradition. (This post was largely inspired by the book Knowing as Loving by Lisa Cadora and Esther Lightcap Meek which I recently reviewed.)

How Mason and Reformed Theology are Aligned:

The Personhood of the Child — Arguably the biggest point of contact comes in Mason’s first principle: Children are born persons. For Mason what this principle means is that children are not empty vessels to be filled or amorphous clay lumps to be shaped by us. They are people who are not to be manipulated by us (her 4th principle) and who have the faculties they need to learn and to interact with the materials of education (her 11th principle). Mason would not say, as classical education does, that children need to be taught to think.

Now it is easy to see that saying “children are born persons” fits very well with a view that they are created in the image of God and so are inherently valuable. That is true and it is certainly a good thing, but it is also pretty basic to Christian thought. There is something more to be said. When Mason says that children have all the faculties they need, she is talking about their intellectual abilities but also about their spiritual nature. As I have argued, for Mason her first principle means, among other things, that:

• Children are spiritual beings.
• They are capable of relationship with their Creator and even have a God-ward desire.
• They have mind, including reason, will, imagination, and creativity.
• They have a conscience, an inborn sense of right and wrong.

Which is to say that for Mason children are capable of relationship with their Creator. For those of us who baptize our infants, who consider them “covenant children,” this should very much ring true. Even the youngest children are able to be in a saving relationship with God, not because of their own capabilities but because for them, as for us, the ability is all on His side. While we want for them to make their own public confession of faith some day, we treat them as people who are in relationship with Him because that is what it means to be “in covenant.”

So the first reason Mason’s philosophy is a good fit for Reformed Presbyterians is that it believes even young children inherently have a relationship with their Creator and it treats them as such.

A Place for Natural Law — This point may not be as palatable to some if you have been conditioned to think that “natural law” is a Catholic phrase. I would point you to this recent podcast by R. Scott Clark at the Heidelcast as well as the many, many others articles he has on this topic. My uneducated summary would be this: all truth is God’s truth. The things that are revealed to us in the Scripture are known as Special revelation. These are things that we need to know in order to be saved and that we could not learn from the revelation of God in Creation alone. But there are nonetheless things God teaches us apart from the Scriptures. All of that is called General Revelation and it includes things we might learn directly from what we consider Creation (by admiring a pretty sunset or examining a frog) but also all the rest of human knowledge. When Reformed people speak of Nature, as opposed to Grace, or of Natural Law, they are speaking of all those other things that God, in His common grace, reveals to all peoples, both elect and non-elect.

Mason does not seem to have the categories to phrase this in the same way but the basic idea is inherent in her philosophy. She seems to mean this when she says that there is to be no distinction between the sacred and the secular in how we educate children. Now certainly we teach our children the Bible and we catechize them and teach them the faith of their fathers. But we also give them access to other areas of knowledge because we believe that these things too ultimately come from Him.

I have known homeschoolers who claim to only teach the Bible and certainly there are many Christian curricula that seek to make every subject distinctly Christian. We reject both of these approaches. Both are actually very limiting in their view of God. They say either “God is only here” or “such-and-such a subject must be taken under the dominion of God” as if all these things were not already His. The fodder of education — all the books and art and materials that we educate our children on — do not need to be Christianized because they are given to us by God.

The second reason for us to appreciate Mason’s philosophy is that it takes God’s General Revelation, aka Natural Law, seriously and so values all the good things God has given us.

The Role of the Holy Spirit — Mason’s 20th and final principle tells us that God the Holy Spirit is the One who ultimately makes education happen. It is a philosophy that assumes God will work, that sees no area of life as being too “secular” and beyond His interest or control, and also that trusts that He knows best how to do these things. As Meek notes, “Mason believed that it is the Holy Spirit that knows the needs of each student” (Knowing as Loving, p. 66). In Mason’s approach the role of the teacher is downplayed because it is God who ultimately works within the child to make education happen.

While we don’t want to confuse salvation and education, there is something very akin to how people are saved that happens in a Mason education. In our witnessing to others, we present the gospel but we do not control the outcome. It is in God’s hands whether it is fruitful or not (or perhaps will be used by Him to bear fruit at some distant future time). So in education, Mason’s approach is to take what is good and true and beautiful and to present it to children and then to step back to let God work and to see what He will produce in them.

The third reason Mason’s philosophy should be attractive to Reformed Presbyterians is that is takes God’s involvement in this world and in our children’s lives seriously and trusts Him to know what is best.

What Mason’s Philosophy Lacks:

In these three big ways, and in perhaps many small ones, there is much to be found in Mason’s philosophy of education which should be attractive to us as Reformed Presbyterians. None of us is perfect in this life, however, and so too no human approach is going to have everything right. The biggest drawback in Mason’s own theology is that she does not take the fallenness of humanity seriously enough. As I have argued before, she did believe in original sin but she also believed in prevenient grace which in essence gives even unregenerate people a leg up, so to speak, and allows them to really choose the good (this idea is behind her controversial and often misunderstood second principle).

As we consider the effects of the Fall, we can divide them into two buckets, sinful things and not sinful things. We are, of course, sinners. We would say even that apart from God’s saving grace we are totally depraved, which is to say that every part of our nature has been affected by sin. There are many ways in which Mason’s philosophy does account for this. Her view was not that children are good but that they are able to choose between the good and the bad. So she includes habit training, which is a form of discipline, as one of the three pillars of her approach to education. And she sees the role of the teacher as spreading a feast of the good, the true, and the beautiful, because she does not believe (as for instance Unschooling does) that children will naturally gravitate to the good on their own. In fact, she believes that left to their own devices they will tend to choose “twaddle,” i.e. that which is unnourishing for them, intellectual junk food if you will. She also has a strong view of the corruption of human reason and understands that as fallen people we cannot trust our own minds. So though we have different theological understandings of what is going on, there is much in Mason’s philosophy which, without perhaps using the words, takes our sin nature seriously.

For some children, especially for those who are covenant children and who are being raised with the benefit of Christian parents and a church family, there may well be enough here in terms of discipline. Though there are also children that will need more discipline than habit training accounts for. There will be too times that Mason’s philosophy seems to fail because, though we present our children with materials that are indisputably good and living, they do not seem to naturally take to them and respond as we think they should. There may be some fine parsing that needs to be done in individual cases, because sometimes the problem will be with us or the materials we present or just our timing in bringing them to our children, but most moms who have been using this approach for a while can also tell you that sometimes it is something in the child that resistant to choosing the good that is set before him.

And then there is the second bucket which includes those things that are a result of the Fall but are not inherently sinful. In this bucket are things like natural disasters and sickness (both of which might affect your homeschool) but also things more inherent to education like learning disabilities. These things exist because sin came into the world but they are not in our lives because of our specific sin nor can they be cured by repentance. In many ways Mason’s philosophy is to be commended for the fact that it treats every child as a person worthy of respect and does not withhold from any the good things that God has provided, but at the same time it offers no solutions for those whose children don’t respond according to the ideal (who perhaps don’t naturally pick up good writing skills and habits even after years of prepared dictation from living books).

My observation from years of being the the CM world and from personal conversations with other moms is that we tend to blame ourselves when things don’t work out according to the ideal. We assume that somehow we have not done the philosophy correctly rather than recognizing that it is not perfect and beyond that that this is just not a perfect world and that we need to make more accommodations to that reality.

Conclusions

When we consider the framework of Charlotte Mason’s philosophy of education and the big ideas behind it, I believe there is much in it that should appeal to Reformed Presbyterians, and I have not found another that better fits my own theology. In particular we can point to her high view of even young children as people in relationship with their Creator; the recognition that all knowledge, including that in “secular” subjects, comes from God; and the role ascribed to God Himself as intimately involved in all areas including our children’s learning. At the same time, Mason was not reformed and there are some gaps in her thinking, particularly with regard to how Sin has affected the educational enterprise. So there may be ways in which we both need to both think more about training our little sinners children and also make more allowances for the ways in which humanity’s fall is evidenced in their lives.

Book Review: Knowing as Loving

I am grateful to the reader who recommended to be Knowing as Loving: Philosophical Grounding for Charlotte Mason’s Expert Educational Insights by Lisa Cadora and Esther Lightcap Meek (Charlotte Mason Institute, 2023). I had read a couple of Meek’s books on epistemology and thought at the time that her ideas fit very well with Mason’s educational philosophy. In a few words, the two share a very relational view of what knowing is and how we come to know. Apparently, Lisa Cadora thought the same and went so far as to approach Meek. The result is this slim volume from the Charlotte Mason Centenary Series.

In Knowing as Loving Meek presents a quick version of her own theory of knowing (aka epistemology) and then shows with specific quotes from Mason’s writings how she, albeit unknowingly, presents a very similar theory. I enjoyed this book but I am glad I had already read Meek’s ideas elsewhere. There is a lot in here (the actual text of the book is only about 60 pages) and it would be a lot to take in and process if one didn’t already have some understanding of both Meek’s ideas and Mason’s philosophy. My biggest critique of the book is that is has a tendency to use strings of big words. Consider this sentence: “Mason’s distinctive practice of student narration consolidates pedagogy attuned to subsidiary focal integration.” (p. 65) I can make sense of this but it does slow me down. The ideas aren’t absorbed as easily when I have to think again about the meaning of each word. The language is accurate but maybe there are some more ordinary words one could use to convey the same point?

There were also a couple of places in which I at least had questions about the material being presented. One was when Meek speaks of “things” as being central to Mason’s approach to education as in: “Mason’s vision clearly affirms the primacy of things in her notion of ideas” (p. 37). If the point is that Mason’s talk of “ideas,” which are for her the substance of education, is rooted in reality I am all for that. And certainly when speaking of young children in her first volume Mason talks of the need for them to form relationships with things like mud. But I am a little wary of boiling down Mason’s “ideas” to merely tangible “things,” if that is indeed what is even meant here.

In the same vein, there is a way in which the book discusses “the Real” which feels a bit pagan. So there is language like “encounter and transformation to the end of communion with the real” (p. 28) and “the goal of education is to confirm and cultivate students as the lovers of the real that they are born to be” (pp. 28-9). I do not doubt the Christian faith of Meek or Mason, but this language feels like it could come from someone pantheistic. I would like to see a little more perhaps on what is meant by “the real.” As Christians we do believe in Truth (with a capital “T”) and it may need to be said today that there is even such a thing as the real, but I would also like to see more of a connection made back to God Himself, as He is the Creator of all that is real and the reason we believe these things.

Overall, however, this is a good book for those who want to dive more deeply into the ideas behind Mason’s philosophy of education, or perhaps to fine-tune their own philosophy of education (mine is here, and may need some fine-tuning). It is always good to see that Mason’s approach to education does stand the test of time and holds its own among modern thinkers and ideas.

A few favorite quick ideas from this book —

• On traditional school methods: “‘Of the means we employ to hinder the growth of the mind perhaps none is more subtle than the questionnaire.'” (p. 59, quoting Mason)
• In contrast, on the power of narration: “Narration gives a much better picture of what has truly become part of the student.” (p. 66)

Meek, who is a reformed Christian, makes the point that her epistemology “allows for the Holy Spirit’s involvement in ordinary acts of knowing” (p. 26). I was struck as I read the book by how well the philosophy it presents aligns with my own (reformed) theology so next time I would like to look at some ways that I believe the Charlotte Mason approach does and does not fit well with reformed Christian theology.**

---

** Mason herself was not reformed. You can find all my articles on her theology here.

Mason & Other Philosophies

What Would Charlotte Mason Have Thought of Other Philosophies of Education?

Last time we looked at what various philosophies of education see as the driving force. What for each is the prime motivator that allows learning to happen? We saw that the bulk of these can be divided into two camps: those that see the impetus as coming from outside the child — from the teacher, materials, or environment — and those that see it as coming from something inherent to the child’s nature. I made the argument that Charlotte Mason’s philosophy of education is unique in that it finds a third way. For Mason, the Prime Mover in education is God the Holy Spirit. He is other than the child but He is not external to the child in the same way that a textbook or a teacher is. He works within the child.

It is not the case, however, that those other things have no impact on education. They all have an effect. However, that effect is not always a positive one. In Mason’s conception, some of the techniques they rely on contribute to education and some, though intended to further learning, actually work against it. So today I’d like to look at how I think Mason would have evaluated each of the following:

• prepared lessons plans, including especially Unit studies with their thematic lessons
• the learning environment, a la Montessori
• the teacher as driving force, including the teacher as mentor model as seen in Thomas Jefferson Education
• the staged approach, which is seen both in some varieties Classical Education and in those philosophies like Waldorf that see the child as evolving
• the emphasis on the ideas behind the materials, as in Principle-based approaches
• the importance of having the right materials as in the Classical/Great Books movement
• the reliance on the child’s own nature, as in Unschooling

This is to a some degree a speculative post. With one notable exception, Mason did not know or interact with the other philosophies in the form we know them today. Nonetheless, there is quite a lot we can glean from her writings.

What would Mason say about … prepared lessons?

Mason was opposed to prepared lessons and to what would be called in our day Unit Studies. At the end of her third volume School Education, Mason gives an “Educational Manifesto” in which she lists four things which destroy the desire for knowledge. Among these are “Too many oral lessons” and “Lectures, for which the teacher collects, arranges, and illustrates matter from various sources; these often offer knowledge in too condensed and ready prepared a form” (p. 214). The ideas of a man named Johann Herbart were popular in her day and bear some resemblance to modern unit studies. She gives the example of a Herbartian curriculum that is designed around apples (School Education, p. 60), all things relate to apples and in the end the children present their knowledge on this topic. Of this approach, Mason says:

“The Herbartian doctrine lays the stress of education––the preparation of knowledge in enticing morsels, presented in due order––upon the teacher. Children taught upon this principle are in danger of receiving much teaching with little knowledge; and the teacher’s axiom is, ‘What a child learns matters less than how he learns it.'” (Preface to the Home Education Series)

Mason’s objection is that the work is done by the teacher so that she comes between the student and the real living materials that he should be digesting for himself. Mason uses the analogy of a feast for the education she offers and we may say that in this style of education, which is so much the norm in our own day, the teacher is like a mama bird pre-chews the meal for the student. He will not grow and develop as he could unless he deals directly with the educational meat and is allowed both to wrestle with it and to make his own connections.

I will add as a caveat that the “Unit Studies” label is used very broadly today (just as, unfortunately, “Charlotte Mason” is). Not everything that is sold as a Unit Study is necessarily going to be opposed to Mason’s philosophy. While we do not want to make connections for children, there is nothing wrong with studying the art and music of the 1800s while you are studying the history of that period.

What would Mason say about … learning environments?

If Mason takes on Unit Studies slightly obliquely through her critique of Herbartianism, she attacks the “learning environments” of Maria Montessori directly. I have discussed Mason’s criticism of Montessori and their differences in earlier posts.

The environment, which in a Montessori education is so essential, is prepared and controlled by the adult (Angeline Stoll Lillard, Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius, pp. 91, 272). In her 10th principle, Mason specifically rejects this approach:

“By the saying, Education is an atmosphere, it is not meant that a child should be isolated in what may be called a ‘child environment,’ especially adapted and prepared; but that we should take into account the educational value of his natural home atmosphere, both as regards persons and things, and should let him live freely among his proper conditions. It stultifies a child to bring down his world to a ‘child’s’ level.”

The objection she has is very much akin to the problem we has with Herbartianism and prepared lessons — in each the teacher comes in some way between the student and the education food he should be consuming through his own efforts. To this is added a further objection that such environments are often artificial. Mason was very much in favor of allowing children to encounter real things, not those that have been made child-like or child-safe for them.

What would Mason say about … the role of the teacher?

What would Mason say of those approaches in which the teacher himself is paramount? Here we consider something like Thomas Jefferson Education (TJEd) in which the teacher is mentor or Waldorf in which the teacher is to be emulated and imitated. These philosophies recognize the power that a teacher can have to shape young minds. Mason too acknowledges this power, and it is because it exists that she cautions against a prominent role for the teacher:

“The person of the child is sacred to us; we do not swamp his individuality in his intelligence, in his conscience, or even in his soul … We safeguard the initiative of the child and we realise that, in educational work, we must take a back seat; the teacher, even when the teacher is the parent, is not to be too much to the front. There is no more facile way of swamping character and individuality than by that idol of the ‘fifties’––personal influence.” (School Education, p. 65)

It is because of the high value Mason places on the personhood of the child that she advocates for a less central role for the teacher. We all recognize the phenomenon that happens when a child finds a teacher or other adult role model that they adore. They strive to be like that person, copying their speech patterns and taking up their interests and the like, and in doing so they, at least temporarily, lose something of themselves. This may be perceived as a good if the teacher is an upright person and one we admire, but even in the best of circumstances Mason sees this as an imposition on the personality of the child and so argues against it.

What would Mason say about … staged approaches to education?

A seven-year-old is not a sixteen-year-old, and I don’t know that anyone would argue that they should be reading the same books and doing the same math problems. Some philosophies go further, however, and have very structured, staged approaches to education. This is true of some varieties of neo-classical education which divide children into one of three stages by age (grammar, logic, and rhetoric), but also of something like Waldorf which sees the child as an evolving creature. Though these two approaches are very different, both see the elementary aged child as both needing and being capable of something very different than the older child. In classical the young child must be taught certain intellectual skills; in Waldorf he grows into them, but in either case the educational diet of the 7-year-old is very different from that of his 16-year-old brother.

Again this is an idea which Mason specifically argues against. It is not that in her schools the 7- and 16-year-olds would be reading the same books or doing the same math, but they would both be getting the same kind of meaty intellectual food. Mason argues that for even the youngest children “the … mind is no mere sac to hold ideas” but is prepared to digest intellectual foodstuffs (her 9th principle) and that he is to be given “all knowledge proper to him, … a full and generous curriculum” (her 11th principle). They will grow in their intellectual habits, but they do not need their faculties to be developed (School Education, p. 151).

What would Mason say about … principle-based approaches?

Here we become a little more speculative. I don’t know that Mason dealt with anything in her day that quite equates to what we have in today’s principle-based approaches to education. These are those philosophies which see some underlying worldview or set of principles as the key element to a proper education. These tend to be ideal-istic approaches to education in that they hold forth an ideal of what they want to student to become. Often this is very much a virtue-based ideal — so they want the child to grow up to be good and kind and courageous or they want him to be a patriot and a leader who is committed to democracy. Whatever the ideal, the view is that, if the proper principles underlie the curriculum, the child will imbibe them and so be formed to meet the ideal.

Principle or worldview-based approaches by their very nature must make some determination before they even begin of what the correct worldview or the desired set of principles are. In contrast, Mason’s goal for the child is that he have a broad foundation and form relationships with as many things and areas of knowledge as possible. While these two ideas are not necessarily contradictory, they do seem to have different trajectories. Mason’s takes a wide shot while the principle-based approaches take very focused aim.

There is something here too which runs over the individuality of the child. As Christians we believe there is Truth (with a capital “T”) and yet we each have our own relationship with our Creator. Because it is a relationship and not just a set of facts, mine will not be the same as yours. So I would agree with Mason when she says that “there is no living soul who does not develop his own philosophy of life” (Parents and Children, p. 130). An approach that says “this is the worldview,” even if it has a solid Christian worldview, leaves perhaps less room for the personhood of the child.

This is true on the big picture level, but perhaps also on a more granular level. Principle-based approaches have a tendency to pre-determine what the moral lesson is to be. Materials are selected to reinforce certain ideas that the adults have decided are key. Mason certainly has children read stories of noble characters whom we would want them to emulate and tales that exemplify core values. Her approach, however, very much allows to child to get from a story what he can and will at that point in time. So if I read my child a book on George Washington hoping to teach a lesson about courage, I must not be discouraged if what my child gets from that book is instead something about honesty or even something about muskets. The child makes his own connections, and the relationships he comes away with may not be those I as an adult expect.

“This education of the feelings, moral education, is too delicate and personal a matter for a teacher to undertake trusting to his own resources. Children are not to be fed morally like young pigeons with predigested food. They must pick and eat for themselves … But they want a great quantity of the sort of food whose issue is conduct, and that is why poetry, history, romance, geography, travel, biography, science and sums must all be pressed into service. No one can tell what particular morsel a child will select for his sustenance.” (Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 59)

There may be a tendency as well, when one has a definite goal in mind, to be overly preachy in the materials one chooses. This Mason clearly argues against and finds to be counter-productive. Overly moralizing books are likely to drive children just the opposite direction.

What would Mason say about … using the “right” materials?

Here we find something that sounds very much like Mason’s own philosophy. As we have seen, Mason argued that the role of the teacher is not to prepare clever lessons, to create the proper environment, or to be a role model. Nor is it to determine ahead of time what principles are to be learned. It is precisely because Mason says that the child himself feeds on his school books and gets from them what he can and will that their selection is so vital. The task of the teacher in a Charlotte Mason education is to spread the intellectual feast and this “spreading” consists very much in selecting and providing the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Yet there are some cautions one should provide here. As important as the materials are to a Charlotte Mason education, they are not the operative element. As we saw in the previous post, it is ultimately not the materials themselves that create learning but God the Holy Spirit working within the child. The impact of a given book or piece of art will not be the same for every child. Two children may read the same book and come away from it with very different things. It may even be the case that a book is “living” for one child but that another fails to get anything from it. So we must not rely on the power of the materials themselves. Having quality materials is key, but it is not all that is necessary.

What would Mason say about … the reliance on the child’s nature?

As we have seen, Mason maintained that even young children have within them all the faculties they need to learn. Relative to her contemporaries, she had a lot of trust in the nature of the child. In her day, the argument she had to make was that every child — even the poor and illegitimate — was able to be educated.

Yet Mason does not go so far as Unschooling, which trusts entirely to the child’s nature. Unschooling in its purest form does not impose upon the child but trusts even that the child will gravitate towards what he needs. For Mason, in contrast, there is still a role for the adult:

“We do not sufficiently recognise the independent intellectual development of children which it is our business to initiate and direct, but not to control or dominate” (School Education, p. 122).

Mason’s view of the child’s nature, while more positive than that of her contemporaries, still sees the possibility for both good and evil within him, as her 2nd principle says: “[Children] are not born either good or bad, but with possibilities for good and for evil.”[1] This is why Mason’s approach lays such an emphasis on spreading a feast of wholesome materials, because fed the wrong intellectual diet the child will grow malformed. Nor will the child inherently gravitate toward what is good for him. Often it is what she calls “twaddle,” intellectual “junk food,” he would choose but this is not what he needs:

“We need not ask what the girl or boy likes. She very often likes the twaddle of goody-goody story books, he likes condiments, highly-spiced tales of adventure. We are all capable of liking mental food of a poor quality and a titillating nature; and possibly such food is good for us when our minds are in need of an elbow-chair; but our spiritual life is sustained on other stuff,…” (School Education, p. 168)

For Mason, then, the child has the abilities to learn, but he will not necessarily incline to the good if left to his own devices. For this reason habit training is also a part of Mason’s approach, because she recognized that children do need discipline and direction.

Conclusions

So we find that for Mason that of all those things that we may look to to further education only a few have any positive effect. Most do just the opposite — they work against true learning. It is particularly those things which the teacher provides or imposes — lesson plans and the prepared environment and even her own influence — which Mason finds most destructive. The right materials are necessary to a good education, but we must be careful that we do not think they do the work in and of themselves, or that there is some formula involved that says “if we read this book, the child will acquire such-and-such a virtue.” Mason has a high view of the child’s abilities, but she does not trust entirely to the goodness of his nature but believes instead that the possibilities for good and evil still lie within him.

Mason in her day warned against “‘new’ educational systems” (Towards a Philosophy of Education, p. 325). She argued instead that “[t]he mind is a spiritual octopus” (p. 330) which requires spiritual food of many kinds. For her “every fruitful idea, every original conception, be it in geometry, or grammar, or music, [is] directly derived from a Divine source” (p. 323) and the ultimate force behind all education is “‘the teaching power of the Spirit of God'” (p. 323).

---

[1] Mason’s 2nd principle is perhaps most often misunderstood. You can read my interpretation of this principle in these articles:

• CM on the Goodness (and Badness) of Children
• Is it biblical: CM’s second principle: part 1, part 2, and part 3

The Driving Force in Education

Charlotte Mason Compared to Other Philosophies of Education

The ideas behind one’s approach to education matter. All philosophies of education make a number of assumptions and perhaps one of the most foundational is what the driving force behind education is. What is it that allows learning to happen?

In most approaches to education, the teacher plays the paramount role. In the Unit Studies approach the teacher selects and arranges the work around a theme so that the child can learn. A similar thought seems to be behind much of what is commonly done in our public schools — that the teacher enables learning to happen by how she selects, arranges, and presents the material. Lesson plans are key, but it is the person behind the lesson plan that deserves the credit.

In some approaches the teacher drives education not by the arranging of material but by something more inherent to her person. Here the teacher is mentor. This is true, for example, in the Thomas Jefferson approach to education.

A related idea is that it is having the proper circumstances produces education. So if one has the right books, the right projects, the best materials learning will occur. In a Montessori education, it is the correct environment (set up by the teacher) that allows learning to happen. The ideas of John Dewey, who had an oversized influence on public education in America, follow similar lines — it is through his interactions with his environment that a child is educated and this environment is created and the process guided by the teacher.

In the Principle Approach and other values-based approaches, it is having the right principles, or ideas, behind all subjects to be studied that is key. In Christian circles lots of talk of “worldview” indicates to us that something like this is at work — if we can just have the right underlying ideas then our children will learn the right things in the right way. Someone, whether the teacher or the curriculum provider, has decided what ideas are the right ones and has made sure they are integrated appropriately into the curriculum.

Classical education is a very broad umbrella but in many of its varieties it falls somewhere among these categories. In much if not all of classical education, the materials are key. Some versions, including that popularized by Dorothy Sayers and promoted by Douglas Wilson, believe in a staged process in which learning must happen in the right way at appropriate ages. For some the teacher again plays a key role as mentor. And in some versions, particularly in the realm of Christian Classical Education, the ideas or values behind the curriculum are what is most important.

In all of these, the drive to learning is external to the child. It is not in any way dependent on the individual child. On the other side are those approaches which find the driving force of education within the child. Unschooling presents the extreme of this view. The parent/teacher imposes no external requirements. Learning happens naturally because it is inherent to the child’s nature. Other approaches take similar, if somewhat modulated views. Wild + Free falls in this category. Not uncommonly there is some blending that happens. So Waldorf believes that there is a natural evolution that happens within the child but also that the teacher plays a key role as one to be emulated. (There is a degree of this too in Montessori.)

These would seem on first examination to be the two ways: education is produced by something external to the child or it is driven by something within the child. There may be a spectrum in the middle and various ways to combine these two ideas but everything must fall along this plane. I would like to suggest that there is a third way and that it is what is embodied in Charlotte Mason’s philosophy of education.

For Mason, the driving force is not external to the child. Though the child is given a good educational diet, this is not ultimately what produces learning. The teacher provides the materials, but Mason is very clear that the main job of the teacher is to step back and that she are not in any way to be manipulative in how she interacts with the students. There is talk of atmosphere, but this is not the same as Montessori’s environment; it is not a carefully constructed thing that allows learning to happen. Nor is learning something that will happen if the child is left alone. The child is born with the tools, or faculties, he needs to learn and even with a love of knowledge, but it is not enough to just leave him to learn or evolve on his own.

While all these things may be in place, for Mason what is truly needful for education is embodied in her 20th principle: “We allow no separation to grow up between the intellectual and ‘spiritual’ life of children, but teach them that the Divine Spirit has constant access to their spirits, and is their Continual Helper in all the interests, duties and joys of life.” (“CM’s 20 Principles”) It is God the Holy Spirit who is the Prime Mover in education. He works within the child but is not of the child himself.

From Mason’s perspective, all those other things — the teacher, the materials, the environment, and what is inherent to the child himself — are not irrelevant. Sometimes their effect is positive and sometimes it is counter-productive to education, but they all come into play. Next time we will examine in more detail how Mason would have viewed each of these other major ideas.

Books Read 2025

Below you will find all the books I read in 2025, first as a simple list in the order I finished them, and then divided into categories (fiction, Christian, animals/nature, and other) with short reviews and notes.

Books Read 2025

Giovanni’s Room by James Baldwin

The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver

A Christian’s Guide to Mental Illness: Answers to 30 Common Questions  by David Murray and Tom Karel Jr.

The Toxic War on Masculinity by Nancy R. Pearcey

The Secret Adversary by Agatha Christie 

The Storied Life of AJ Firky by Gabrielle Zevin

The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible by A.J. Jacobs 

Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains  by Bethany Brookshire

The Outermost House by Henry Beston 

The Woman They Wanted by Shannon Harris

Reading Genesis  by Marilynne Robinson

Political Visions and Illusions and citizenship without Illusions by David Koyzis

Everyone who Can Forgive Me is Dead by Jenny Hollander 

Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey

Jayber Crow by Wendell Berry  ←– Fiction Honorable Mention

The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment  by Jeremiah Burroughs (Modern Puritan) ← Must-read of the year

Reflections on the Psalms by CS Lewis 

Spiritual Depression by Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens ←- Classic fiction

The Magnificent Ambersons by Booth Tarkington

The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt

The Life of God in the Soul of Man by Henry Scougal

Indians, Indiana by Laird Hunt

Enduring Wild by Josh Jackson

Nicked by Joanna Hill

The Feather Detective: Mystery, Mayhem, and the Magnificent Life of Roxie Laybourne by Chris Sweeney

The Bruised Reed (In Modern English) by Richard Sibbes

Dog land by Will Shetterly  ←- Runner-up best fiction

Leonard and Hungry Paul by Ronan Hession  <— Best fiction recommendation

Here in Avalon by Tara Isabella Burton

The Accidental Garden by Richard Mabey 

A Death in a Town and Last Seen Wearing by Hillary Waugh

Moving Past the Roadblocks that Keep You from a Deeper Relationship with God by Debra Banna 

The Skunks by Fiona Warnick 

The House on Buzzards Bay by Dwyer Murphy

My Beloved Monster by Caleb Carr ←- Best animal/nature book

Out of the Silent Planet by CS Lewis

The Dolphin People by Torsten Krol

Everyone is Lying to You by Jo Piazz

———————-

Fiction

Giovanni’s Room by James Baldwin  – I had seen this book recommended and never having read Baldwin but often having heard him cited thought it might be a good one to try. Honestly, I didn’t know much about Baldwin or the sorts of books he writes beyond that he seems to be esteemed as a “good” writer. I knew he was African-American. I did not know he was homosexual. Giovanni’s Room is not overly explicit but it is about homosexual relationships so it will no doubt make some uncomfortable. It is well-written and kept my attention. I don’t know what the point is supposed to be, but what I was struck by was just how unhappy the characters’ lives were. The main characters have a time of happiness in their life but there is nothing that makes their life or lifestyle seem desirable or able to ultimately be fulfilling. I don’t know what Baldwin was going for, but what he seems to show is that these are very hurt people who are longing for something but not finding it where they are looking. It is a picture of fallenness with no redemption. 

The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver – This is my second Kingsolver novel. You can read my thoughts on Demon Copperhead here. While the settings are fairly different – Demon is set in modern day Appalachia and Poisonwood in Africa in the latter half of the 20th century (it spans many decades) – there are a lot of similarities between the two books. Comparing the two, one can see the author’s preferences coming through. For instance, Kingsolver clearly favors more rural environments over urban ones because they offer natural resources that can help one survive in times of crisis (by doing things like foraging). My big criticism of Demon was that it seemed to leave religion out entirely. One cannot say that of Poisonwood since it is about a missionary family. Religion is in many ways central to the plot. And yet it also isn’t. The most religious character, the father, is an unsympathetic one. He is harsh to his family, rigid in his beliefs, and ultimately (spoiler alert) just mentally unbalanced. His family members pursue different paths and Kingsolver manages to portray each of them much more sympathetically but they all find contentment apart from religion. It was interesting to read this book while there is currently unrest (to say the least) in the Congo. Kingsolver paints a picture of a time and place that helps one understand the political problems and the landscape better. But as with Demon she ultimately seems limited by her worldview, one which is completely secular and has no room for real faith. We have African refugees in our church who have family and friends still there and who have a stake in a Christian clinic that serves particularly pregnant women fleeing violence. There are Christians on the ground in Congo doing good work who do what they do and are able to stand in the face of real threats because of their faith. Kingsolver in both her books writes as if she is completely unaware of such people and I have a hard time understanding how that can be.

The Secret Adversary by Agatha Christie – The first Tommy and Tuppence mystery. Light and easy vacation reading. More of a spy story than a mystery.

The Storied Life of AJ Firky by Gabrielle Zevin – I read this book almost entirely on plane flights. It is not too long and keeps the attention. It is about a bookstore owner living on a fictional island akin to Martha’s Vineyard. The characters are likeable. Lots of thoughts on books and the writing industry are woven in. It’s not a book that surprises one very much; you can see most of the action coming. While enjoyable, it left me feeling like there was something missing. Like it just could have gone deeper or meant more.

Everyone who Can Forgive Me is Dead by Jenny Hollander – A mystery of sorts in which the main character does not know the events of her own life and must reconstruct a traumatic experience. The book kept my attention but the ending was disappointing. 

Jayber Crow by Wendell Berry  – Berry is a wonderful writer. His books are always worth reading. They are wholesome without being boring though the experience is often more about knowing a time and place than about action-packed plot. 

Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens – Dickens is also always worth reading. There are a lot of likeable characters in this one and though one ultimately knows how it will end, it is still exciting watching it all unfold and rooting for the good guys to prosper and the bad guys to get their comeuppance. 

The Magnificent Ambersons by Booth Tarkington  – I enjoyed this book (which I did as an audiobook) though I did not find the main character at all likeable. The Ambersons are a wealthy midwestern family in the late 1800s/early 1900s (?). The book chronicles their story and downfall. The author seems to be saying a lot about progress and those who are not able to adapt to changing times and technologies. 

Indiana, Indiana by Laird Hunt – This story unfolds through memories and letters which tell snippets so that the reader has to reconstruct a family story that is not told entirely sequentially. It is reminiscent of Faulkner though not nearly so well done. The story was not a bad one but also just not that exciting.

Nicked by Joanna Hill – This book one me over a little. At first I thought it was just poorly written but it drew me in. It is a relatively short book and not one that takes a lot of extra time for anything. A good quick read while travelling perhaps. The story is about an investigator tracking an art heist in which he is unwittingly personally involved.

Dog land by Will Shetterly – I enjoyed this book. A family moves to Florida in the 1960s to start what is essentially a zoo for different dog species. There is a lot of history and culture woven in. 

Leonard and Hungry Paul by Ronan Hession  – Another winner. This one is not too long and very amusingly written. It is a book that appreciates intelligence though its characters are fairly simple people. Leonard and Hungry Paul are two unassuming young adult men who seem to have failed to launch in life but somehow make their way to fulfilling lives.

Here in Avalon by Tara Isabella Burton – The story of two sisters from a non-functional family, one of whom disappears. The mystery was intriguing for a time and the book explores some interesting ideas about escape from ordinary life and whether it is worth it. Not entirely satisfying though. 

The House on Buzzards Bay by Dwyer Murphy – I read this book because it is set semi-locally to me. A group of old college friends get together at a beach house for the summer. I liked a lot of the set-up. I didn’t like the way things resolved and a lot of spiritual stuff was brought in. 

Out of the Silent Planet by CS Lewis – The first of Lewis’s space trilogy. This one sets a scene and describes a way Creation might be but is lighter on plot. 

The Dolphin People by Torsten Krol – An interesting book, though with some very old elements. Post-WWII a German family is lost among a primitive tribe in South America. There is lots of nudity and talk of body parts and some explicit adult content. There are messages here about anti-Semitism too though I feel like they didn’t connect as well as the author probably would have liked. 

Everyone is Lying to You by Jo Piazz – This book started out well. I thought it described a certain segment of mommy-blogger types very amusingly and well. There is a mystery involved too which was initially intriguing but ultimately none of it seemed to resolve in very satisfying ways. Everything was tied in too neat of a bow. 

A Death in a Town and Last Seen Wearing by Hillary Waugh – Two slightly older mystery/detective stories. Both are well-written in a matter-of-fact kind of way. 

The Skunks by Fiona Warnick – As with so much of the fiction I read this year, this one started well and drew me in and then seemed to stumble when trying to bring it all together and provide an ending. This one is about a recent college grad house-sitting in her home town. She also sees a family of skunks so they are woven in and we learn some facts about skunks. But ultimately there should have been more about real skunks and less made up stuff. There are also adult/modern elements I didn’t need.

Christian books

A Christian’s Guide to Mental Illness: Answers to 30 Common Questions  by David Murray and Tom Karel Jr. – This is an excellent book. Easy to read and broken down in quite manageable chunks. I highly recommend it for any Christian who struggles with mental illness or knows someone who does or might at some point know someone who will (which is to every, every one of us). The authors write from what seems to be a reformed perspective as well. They have great respect for the role of the local church and seem to assume a Presbyterian form of government. They also understand and appreciate what we call the ordinary means of grace. This is a balanced take which acknowledges the role sin sometimes has to play in mental illness and yet that there can be more to it than just spiritual issues.

The Toxic War on Masculinity by Nancy R. Pearcey – Pearcey argues here for a view of masculinity that is not dismissive of what it is to be male on the one hand but does not hype up an overly cigar-smoking, liquor-drinking, I-don’t-need-to-feel-things-I’m-a-man model on the other. She makes a good case for the value of men and particularly of fathers.  She uses a few different weapons. She is at her best when she cites hard numbers from studies that have been done. She seems to do a good job tracing societal ideas through history (as far as I can tell). But she weaves in her own thoughts and I wish that there were more of a distinction to say clearly “this is where the evidence ends and this is where my personal conclusions begin.” She is at her worst I think when she tries to interpret the biblical text. There is a lot in The Toxic War on Masculinity that is good and insightful and thought-provoking and I would recommend it but one cannot just take it as is without some level of critical thought. 

The Woman They Wanted by Shannon Harris – This is more of an anti-Christian than a Christian book. It is Shannon Harris’s deconstruction story. She was the wife of Joshua Harris who wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye and then in recent years denounced his book, left the faith, and divorced. Shannon also left her faith and church (admittedly a denomination that had some underlying issue). She bears no ill-will to her ex-husband in this book.  There are perhaps some lessons for the Church to learn from Shannon’s story and she tells it well. It is hard not to be sympathetic to her. But one also gets the feeling that she just never really understood the faith she professed. 

Reading Genesis  by Marilynne Robinson – Robinson is best known as a fiction writer, author of books such as Gilead. She identifies as a Christian. The latter half of this book is simply the text of Genesis in the KJV. The first half contains Robinson’s insights into the text. They appear in somewhat of a stream of consciousness format with some weaving back and forth though there is a general trajectory to move through the book from beginning to end. The content of Robinson’s thoughts varies from truly insightful to possibly heretical. Often she employs complex sentences that seem to obscure her meaning or uses words that sound orthodox but the meaning behind them seems to be non-standard. For instance, she speaks of “the creation by God of His image in humankind” rather than the creation of man in the image of God.  Because there is so much that is questionable mixed with the good, I cannot recommend this book to anyone but fairly well-versed, mature Christians. 

Political Visions and Illusions and Citizenship without Illusions by David Koyzis – Koyzis is a Christian scholar. His books on political philosophy are well worth reading. Of the two, I preferred Political Visions though it is Citizenship which is intended more for the average congregant. Koyzis is at his best when he analyzes different political philosophies and shows how each does and doesn’t align with the Christian faith, as he does in Political Visions.  When he turns to being more prescriptive and tries to construct a Christian political philosophy, I felt he falters more. The categories he uses are helpful as we think about things but he looks primarily at Catholic and Dutch Reformed models and I wish he had interacted with other Christian ways of thinking.

The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment  by Jeremiah Burroughs (Modern Puritan) – This is the best book I read this year. In fact, I read it twice. All Christians should read it. While it is well worth interacting on your one, you can read my notes on it here as a kind of introduction. The short version is: Contentment is a duty all Christians are called to but it does not come naturally. We must strive for contentment.Burroughs take is not a simplistic, modern one. He acknowledges the real struggles we face in life. The book gives many practical suggestions but there is no easy guide to contentment; it is a constant effort. I also really like the books published by Modern Puritans. They update the language some but they are not abridged or simplified.

Spiritual Depression by Martyn Lloyd-Jones – A solid Christian book. It is a series of essays and they vary somewhat in how good they are but there is a lot here to like. 

The Life of God in the Soul of Man by Henry Scougal (Modern Puritan)  – I have been trying more books by Modern Puritan. This is a short one and I had heard it referenced but it was not my favorite. 

The Bruised Reed (In Modern English) by Richard Sibbes (Modern Puritan) – Again, a Modern Puritan edition. This one was decent.

Moving Past the Roadblocks that Keep You from a Deeper Relationship with God by Debra Banna – The author is my daughter’s former art teacher. I wasn’t sure what to expect but for the most part this was a pretty good book. It is written as a study for women in particular and while that is not a genre I tend to like (modern Christian women’s books) this one was pretty decent and could be a good choice for women you know who are curious about Christianity and/or struggling with family trauma.  

Animals and Nature

Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains  by Bethany Brookshire – The title tells you what this one is about. It had some interesting elements and makes one think in some ways. It wasn’t quite as good as I wanted it to be. 

The Outermost House by Henry Beston – Beston’s account of spending a year alone on an outer beach of Cape Cod. Mildly interesting. 

Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey – The story of Abbey’s time rangering in a national park in the western desert. There were some interesting stories woven in. 

Enduring Wild by Josh Jackson – Jackson’s tale of exploring all California’s BLM (Bureau of Land Management) lands. It wasn’t bad but I wished for something a little more exciting.

My Beloved Monster by Caleb Carr – Carr is a writer with medical issues who adopts a unique cat who also has some medical issues. This one was well-written and will be enjoyed by cat lovers and maybe some non-cat lovers too. 

The Accidental Garden by Richard Mabey – The story of Mabey’s gardens. It wasn’t as good as I wanted it to be. 

Miscellaneous

The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible by A.J. Jacobs – Jacobs, a journalist and a cultural but not a particularly religious Jew when the book starts, takes on the assignment of trying to live by the Bible as literally as possible for a year. Jacobs is a good writer and he has some humorous stories. He shows at times an awareness of the different ways to approach the biblical text, but he often just seems to miss the point entirely. For example, he creates situations which require his wife to do more work on the Sabbath because he is doing less. This fulfills one command (keep the Sabbath) at the expense of another (allow others to rest). Categories (moral vs civil vs ceremonial law & prescriptive vs descriptive texts) are ignored. In the end Jacobs is somewhat changed by his year of living biblically, but more than anything one feels how easy it is to spend a lot of time on the Bible and miss the point entirely. 

The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt – Haidt gets a lot of press for this book and it is certainly well-written and presents a lot of seemingly convincing evidence. I would encourage you if you read it to also read Peter Gray’s critique here and his one theories in this series. While I agree with a lot of the practical steps Haidt proposes, and many mirror what we inadvertently did with our own kids, I am not so convinced that all his theories (and they are theories) about the effects of cell phones. 

The Feather Detective: Mystery, Mayhem, and the Magnificent Life of Roxie Laybourne by Chris Sweeney – This is a biography of a remarkable woman. Her personal life is in many ways not to be emulated but it is hard not to respect her career and dedication. She was the person to analyze feathers for the Smithsonian for decades. It is amazing how many cases, including criminal cases and especially airline disasters, require feather identification. 

Is It CM?: New Additions

In this series I look at homeschool curricula that use the Charlotte Mason label and examine to what degree they truly adhere to her philosophy. A good place to start is with this Google document overview of all the CM and CM-ish curricula I have rated to date. You can also check out the Master “Is it CM” list to see all the past entries. This post discusses how I rate the curricula.

Today we look at Salt + Light, Schola Rosa, and Treehouse.

Salt+ Light (2.5)

A Catholic curriculum. It bills itself as minimalist. Includes faith studies, English, history, science, and personal development (topics for which range from etiquette to woodcarving and outdoor survival skills). Grades 1-12 with some resources for K and pre-K.

What’s CM about it?

I like that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of busy work and that the academic portion of one’s day would just be a few hours with this curriculum. It claims to take a CM approach to language arts but I can’t see specifics. 

What isn’t CM?

Notebooking is mentioned. The books that I can see listed do not all appear to be good, living ones (some are, some aren’t) and in general it doesn’t seem to list enough books. While the curriculum does say it is minimalist and perhaps the idea is that one could supplement with others, I would like to see more quality books incorporated.

Quick Take Summary:

There is not a lot I can see of this curriculum so it is hard to judge. My impression is that it has some CM elements but is not really what I’d call a CM curriculum. It does seem to be very Catholic so if that is something you want it may be worth looking into further and could well serve as a starting place from which to build a more CM curriculum.

Schola Rosa (and Traditio Nostra) (1)

Another Catholic curriculum. It bills itself as Classical and Charlotte Mason (understanding Mason to be within the classical tradition, which is still an open debate in CM circles). Pre-K to 12th. (The curriculum for 7th-12th grades goes by the name Traditio Nostra.)

What’s CM about it?

I am not familiar with all the books Schola Rosa uses, especially the more specifically Catholic ones, but it looks to use a good number of living books for the K-6 curriculum. Dictation, narration, nature study, and picture study are mentioned. It is not clear to me if these are done in a CM way.

For Traditio Nostra (the 7th-12th curriculum) I see fewer living books listed. The books used seem to be instead more compilation-like readers (whether they are written in a more living or textbook-y way I cannot tell). The upper grades do read some substantial works of fiction (eg. Dante’s Divine Comedy) as well as Shakespeare.

What isn’t CM?

Based on Schola Rosa’s description of its philosophy, it is primary classical in its approach with Mason’s ideas informing certain choices, especially with regard to language acquisition. It looks like there is a considerable workbook-like element with reading comprehension questions and the like. There are many elements that would fit with a CM curriculum, eg. Shakespeare and some substantial literary works, but these would also be part of a classical curriculum so it is a little hard to say if they are CM per se. The teaching of logic and virtues as they are done here seems to come from a classical approach and not be CM.

Quick Take Summary:

Schola Rosa and Traditio Nostra appear to be primary classical curricula. There may be some CM influence but it seems relatively small, perhaps especially in the upper grades.

Treehouse (2.5)

The tagline for Treehouse reads: “Our home education resources focus on seasonal rhythms, Biblical truth, living books, and intentional family connection.” It has an open-and-go, family-style approach. It is not a whole curriculum but resources for nature, study, Bible, and book study are available as well as articles on other subjects. The nature study curriculum, which seems to be the main component, is billed as being Charlotte Mason style and also Waldorf-inspired. Pre-K through middle school.

What’s CM about it?

Nature study, which is the main component of Treehouse, is CM. The nature study curriculum also includes poetry and picture study. The books chosen for the book study guides seem to be good ones. Narration and copywork/dictation are mentioned/recommended. While the curriculum is family-style and littles can be included, formal education is delayed until age 6.

What isn’t CM?

There is a lot that seems to be scripted rather than open-ended (eg. the questions for picture study). Notebooking, which comes more from the Waldorf side, seems to be a major element. (I am willing to be convinced that notebooking fits with CM but just haven’t had that proven to me yet. ) The curriculum is organized around seasonal themes. There may be some following of the seasons which comes naturally, but there does seem to be an element of unit studies here in that the materials are grouped around a theme for the child rather than using diverse materials that allow the child to make the connections. There seem to be a lot of added activities with both the nature study and book study curricula. These could no doubt easily be skipped but they are not CM. Examples of added non-CM elements include creative writing prompts

Quick Take Summary:

There are good resources and books being used in Treehouse. The non-CM bits are not so much in what is missing but in what is added. It is more of “CM and . . .” which then becomes inherently less CM. I am also a little suspicious of the emphasis on being gentle. See my CM Fact Check post for more on this. I imagine that Mason herself would much rather have been thought of of presenting a meaty, challenging education than a gentle one.

Is It CM?: More New Additions

I have a couple of all-in-one curricula to add to my “Is it CM” list. I am also continually adding other Charlotte Mason-y resources to the Google document of CM and CM-ish curricula. Those which are not whole curricula are only listed on that document but I try to give a note about my impressions of them and how CM they are. See this recent post for how I rate curricula.

Today we look at the Gentle + Classical Press’s pre-K to 1st grade curriculum and STAR Homeschool. I will add these to the Google document of CM curricula and the Master “Is it CM” post as well.

Gentle + Classical Press (1)

Gentle + Classical has resources for older grades (which are listed separately in my Google doc of curricula) but it’s complete curriculum is only available for pre-K (ages 2-4) and K-1. It is a distinctly Christian curriculum with values, Bible, and catechism heavily represented. This curriculum is in the process of being revised. I don’t know how significant the changes will be and if this will change my review of it.

What’s CM about it?

Includes hymn, artist, and composer study and poetry. The books used or recommended seem like good living books.

What isn’t CM?

Early learning is inherently not CM (though of course some may be required to teach at the K level at least). Material is grouped in a unit studies like way around themes that are virtue based (eg. self-control, patience). Unit studies themselves are not CM, but the emphasis on virtues in such an explicit way is also more classical and not CM. Virtue education in CM’s philosophy was much more subtle. Books were selected with an eye to the moral lessons their characters might convey but not with an explicit statement of “and now we are reading about XX to learn about the value of patience.” As with all things in a CM education, ultimately each child may take something different from the materials. Gentle + Classical also seems to use a lot of memorization, flashcards, and worksheets.

Quick Take Summary:

Gentle + Classical claims to be classical with a strong CM influence. The backbone of it seems much more classical than CM, particularly in the heavy use of memorization and the emphasis on virtue. The CM elements mostly come through in the inclusion of the “riches” (i.e. poetry, art, etc.).

STAR Homeschool (4)

STAR is built on 4-year cycles for history and science/nature. It is definitively Christian with Bible, hymn study, and apologetics. While it covers all subjects, it could be described as more of a plan than a whole curriculum in that it uses many resources from others (eg. The Good and the Beautiful science units). It has options for CM “purists” and for those who wish to incorporate some other resources.

What’s CM about it?

Uses many good living books. Include geography, art, poetry, handicrafts, and composer study. Habit training is also mentioned. For language arts, she describes how to do it in the CM way with narration, copywork, and dictation but also gives suggestions for those who want to add more.

What isn’t CM?

There are options given for the schedule and for language arts for those who don’t wish to be CM “purists.” While many book selections are good, some are not what I consider CM. There are often more living options mentioned, so in many cases the less CM ones could easily be avoided. There are some added things like audio stories that are probably not CM (though it would be anachronistic to have asked CM to comment on such things). It is unclear to me to what extent nature study and nature journaling are included and how they are implemented.

Quick Take Summary:

I would call STAR very close to CM. She seems to have a good awareness of when she is giving other options and will often make those choices clear. There are certain subjects for which the truly CM options may be slimmer, among them apologetics, habit-training, and science.