I feel like I don’t have a great grasp of the finer differences between the different Charlotte Mason curricula out there so I set myself to try to learn more about each. Personally, I tend to read and pull from different sources but mostly to “free-form” what I do — i.e. to find my own resources and piece things together. I don’t have a strong tie to any one of these so I hope I am not too biased.
I began by looking at 4 CM curricula: Simply Charlotte Mason (SCM), Ambleside Online (AO), A Delectable Education (ADE), and the Alveary from the Charlotte Mason Institute (CMI). In another post, I plan to look at A Modern Charlotte Mason, Living Books Curriculum, and Charlotte Mason Help. The topics I have chosen speak to general concerns (“how much will this cost me?”) as well as specific concerns I have (“how is high school science approached?”). I haven’t touched on every possible subject. There are a lot of areas in which they all say pretty much the same thing — e.g. “spelling is learned through copywork and dictation.”
I have tried as much as possible to let the curricula speak for themselves — to use quotes from their own materials. For some, this was easier than others. AO gives a lot of detail about their curriculum. ADE, which is primarily podcasts, is harder logistically to get direct quotes from. The Alveary, which is very new and works on a subscription basis, is hard to find specifics on though I have managed to glean some things from the sample lists I could find.
With all of these, we should acknowledge that people will alter and combine what they find. I am trying to give you what each curriculum is — what it offers and claims to be. But you may, as I have always done, adjust and tweak at will.
I am not making judgments about which curriculum is best — or most purely CM– here. I may be tempted to give some of my own opinions in another post.
Without further ado, then, here is Four Charlotte Mason Curricula Compared:
I realize there are gaps here and there may be things I have misrepresented (I have tried my best but no doubt misunderstood some things; there is a lot to take in). Please feel free to comment with edits and emendations. I would ask, however, that you make sure any additions are representing the intents of the curriculum itself rather than its interpretations by users.