Fairy Tales and Nursery Rhymes Around the World

This is our focus for Kindergarten (and tagalog K3 ;)) this year. I wanted to do something with world cultures and geography, and given how dd5 *loves* stories, I thought fairy tales were the way to go. Since dd2.5 will be tagging along, I threw in some world nursery rhymes, too.

The basic plan is simple - read the stories and rhymes in whatever order seems good at the time (and however many we are in the mood for), looking up each country on the map and marking it with a post-it arrow, and adding a "stamp" (in our case, a sticker ;)) to our passports. We also have Wee Sing Around the World, and the plan there is to focus on a song a week (or so), with me using my rusty violin skills as accompanist. We also have a few other books - Children Like Us, DK First Atlas - that we'll pull out every now and then.

As I made my giant master list of stories/rhymes by country today, I realized just how many there are (and most of our rhyme books have not arrived, and so aren't even in the list yet). I've no idea how long it will take to read them all, or even if we *will* get to them all. Just going to go with the flow. This is our first year - if we find our groove and dd5 learns to read (or is making progress on that front), Kindergarten will be a rousing success :).

Anyway, since I spent all afternoon typing up this (still only partial!) list, I thought I'd share it with the world, in the faint hope that some one else might find it useful.


Fairy Tales and Nursery Rhymes from Around the World

Books and Abbreviations (white = fairy tales, blue = nursery rhymes, pink = songs/other, italics = contents not in the list yet):

AWT - "Around the World in 80 Tales", by Saviour Pirotta
GMN - "Can You Guess My Name? Traditional Tales from Around the World", retold by Judy Sierra
Lang - "The Rainbow Fairy Book", edited by Andrew Lang, selected by Michael Hague
NT - "Nursery Tales Around the World", retold by Judy Sierra
SS - "Silly & Sillier: Read-Aloud Tales from Around the World", told by Judy Sierra
SAW - "Stories from Around the World", retold by Heather Amery

MV - "My Village: Rhymes from Around the World", collected by Danielle Wright
SAO - "Skip Across the Ocean: Nursery Rhymes from Around the World", compiled by Florella Benjamin
RRW - "Rhymes 'Round the World", by Kay Chorao
LB - "The Laughing Baby : Songs & Rhymes from Around the World", by Anne Scott
BR - "The Calico Book of Bedtime Rhymes from Around the World", by Mary Pope Osborne


WS - "Wee Sing Around the World"
VP - "Voices : Poetry and Art from Around the World", selected by Barbara Brenner
CLM - "Children Like Me"
DK - "DK First Atlas"


Note: MV, SAO, and WS contain both the native language and English versions.


NORTH AMERICA
Bahamas - Clever Mandy - SS
Canada - The White Bear - AWT
Canada - Going Over the Sea - WS
Cuba - The Charcoal Seller's Son - AWT
Guatemala - The Golden Horseshoe - AWT
Jamaica - Tingalay-o! - MV
Jamaica - Anasai and the Plantains - AWT
Jamaica - Anansi and the Pig - NT
Jamaica - Chi Chi Bud (Chi Chi Bird) - WS
Mexico - One Good Turn Deserves Another - SS
Mexico - Red Ant, Black Ant - AWT
Mexico - The Singing Toad - SAW
Mexico - The Ram in the Chile Patch - NT
Mexico - Pin Pon (Paper Doll) - WS
Puerto Rico - El Coqui (The Frog) - WS
Puerto Rico - The Half Chick - AWT
United States (Native American, Pueblo) - The Coyote and the Lizard - SS
United States (Native American, Pueblo) - The Coyote and the Rabbit - NT
United States - The More the Merrier - AWT
United States (Native American, Sioux, Dakota Plains) - The Three Spells - AWT
United States (Hawaii) - The Owl Battle - AWT
United States (African American) - Brer Rabbit Goes Fishing - AWT
United States (Native American, Northeastern tribes) - The Magic Doll - SAW
United States - The Gingerbread Man - NT
United States - I Know an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly - NT
United States - Sody Sallyraytus - NT
United States (African American) - The Gunny Wolf - NT
United States (Native American, Cherokee) - NT
United States (Scottish American) - The Three Little Piggies and Old Mister Fox - GMN
United States (African American) - Big Pig, Little Pig, Speckled Pig, and Runt - GMN
United States (Anglo American) - How Jack Went to Seek His Fortune - GMN
United State (Native American) - The Cunning Hare - Lang
United States - Uhe Basho Sho (The Crooked Path) - WS
United States - Eentsy Weentsy Spider - WS
United States (Hawaii) - Nani Wale Na Hala (Pretty Hala Trees) - WS
West Indies - Tingalayo (Donkey Song) - WS


SOUTH AMERICA
South America - How the Birds Got Their Bright Feathers - SAW
Argentina - Juan Bobo - SS
Argentina - The Man in the Moon - AWT
Argentina - Medio Pollito - GMN
Argentina - Mi Chacra (My Farm) - WS
Bolivia - The Armadillo's Song - AWT
Brazil - If This Street Were Mine - MV
Brazil - Jabuti and Jaguar Go Courting - SS
Brazil - The Three Oranges - AWT
Brazil - Ciranda (Circle Game) - WS
Chile - The Monk's Treasure - AWT
Columbia - The Lost Friend - AWT
Ecuador - Two for You, Three for Me - AWT
Guyana - Bring Girl in the Ring - WS
Paraguay - Toad in the Hole - AWT
Peru - Wish Upon a Star - AWT
Peru - Los Pollitos (Little Chicks) - WS
Venezuela - The Rainbow Snake - AWT


EUROPE
Europe (Andersen) - The Steadfast Tin Soldier - Lang
Europe (Andersen) - The Swineherd - Lang
Europe (Andersen) - The Nightingale - Lang
Europe (Andersen) - The Tinderbox - Lang
Europe (Perrault) - Little Red Riding Hood - Lang
Europe (Grimm) - The Twelve Dancing Princesses - Lang
Europe (Grimm) - The Six Swans - Lang
Austria - The Frog's Wedding - AWT
Belgium - The Lace Makers of Bruges - AWT
Britain - Dick Whittington - SAW
Bulgaria - Orfeo in the Underworld - AWT
Czech Republic - Kuratko the Terrible - SS
Czech Republic - Nail Soup - SAW
Denmark - Snowman Frost - MV
Denmark - A Real Princess - AWT
Denmark - En Enebær Busk (The Mulberry Bush) - WS
England - Silly and Sillier - SS
England - Cap o' Rushes - AWT
England - This is the House That Jack Built - NT
England - The Three Pigs - NT
England - The Three Pigs - Lang
England - The History of Jack the Giant Killer - Lang
England - Jack and the Beanstalk - Lang
England - Lavender's Blue - WS
Estonia - The Laziest Boy in the World - AWT
Finland - The Gift of the Sun - AWT
Finland - Piiri Pieni Pyörii (The Circle Goes Around) - WS
France - What is My Hand Doing? - MV
France - The Miller's Son - AWT
France - Puss in Boots - SAW
France - Jean and Jeannette - GMN
France (Perrault) - Cinderella - Lang
France (Perrault) - The Master Cat, or Puss in Boots - Lang
France - Father Grumbler - Lang
Germany - Dance, Little Child, Dance! - MV
Germany - The Dwarf's Gift - AWT
Germany - The Musicians of Bremen - SAW
Germany (Grimm) - Rapunzel - Lang
Germany - The Ratcatcher - Lang
Germany (Grimm) - The Fisherman and His Wife - Lang
Germany (Grimm) - Rumplestiltzkin - Lang
Germany (Grimm) - Hansel and Grettel - Lang
Germany - The Nixy - Lang
Germany (Grimm) - Snowdrop - Lang
Germany (Grimm) - Snow-white and Rose-red - Lang
Germany (Grimm) - The Street Musicians - Lang
Germany - Alle Meine Entchen (All My Little Ducklings) - WS
Greece - The Pirate's Punishment - AWT
Greece - How the Turtle Got its Shell - SAW
Greece - The Hair and the Tortoise - NT
Greece - Pou'n-do To Dachtilidi (Where Is the Ring?) - WS
Hungary - Thirsty are the Reeds - AWT
Iceland - Bye, Bye, Blacking - MV
Ireland - The Little Donkey - MV
Ireland - The Wonderful Pancake - SS
Ireland - The Giant's Causeway - AWT
Ireland - Wee Falorie Man - WS
Italy - Buggy Wuggy - SS
Italy - The Silver Goose - AWT
Italy - Buried Treasure - SAW
Italy - The Rooster and the Mouse - NT
Italy - The Three Geese - GMN
Italy - Mio Galletto (My Little Rooster) - WS
Lappland - The Elf Maiden - Lang
Latvia - The Fighting Fisherman - AWT
Lithuania - The Mermaid's Marriage - AWT
Malta - Green Figs, Purple Figs - AWT
Netherlands - Hans, the Hero of Haarlem - AWT
Netherlands (Holland) - Kortjakje is Always Sick - MV
Netherlands (Holland) - Brave Hendrick - SAW
Netherlands - Alle Eendjes (All the Ducklings) - WS
Norway - Rain - MV
Norway - Three Billy Goats Gruff - AWT
Norway - The Pancake - NT
Norway - East of the Sun & West of the Moon - Lang
Norway - Ro, Ro Til Fiskeskjær (Row, Row to the Fishing Spot) - WS
Poland - The Dreadful Dragon - AWT
Portugal - Roast Rooster - AWT
Romania - Keeping Secrets - AWT
Russia - Hush You Mice - MV
Russia - Bear Squash-You-All-Flat - SS
Russia - The Czar's Wedding Ring - AWT
Russia - Baba Yaga, the Witch - SAW
Russia - The Bun - NT
Russia - The Flying Ship - Lang
Scotland - The Selkie Wife - AWT
Scotland - Coulter's Candy - WS
Serbia - Little Singing Frog - GMN
Spain - A Helpful Friend - AWT
Spain - The Four Brothers - SAW
Spain - The Water of Life - Lang
Spain - Mi Burro (My Burro) - WS
Scandinavia - Thor's Hammer - SAW
Sweden - Nail Soup - AWT
Sweden - Titeliture - GMN
Sweden - Små Grodorna (Little Frogs) - WS
Switzerland - Joggeli, Can You Ride? - MV
Switzerland - The Herdsman's Song - AWT
Turkey - A Sleeve in the Soup - AWT
Turkey - Ali Baba'nin Çiftli?i (Ali Baba's Farm) - WS
Ukraine - Veselee Husi (Jolly, Happy Ganders) - WS
Wales - The Island of Fairies - AWT
Yugoslavia (former) - Ringe, Ringe Raja (Ring Around Raja) - WS


AFRICA
Africa - Stealing the Sun - SAW
Botswana - The Ostrich's Horns - AWT
Egypt - Counting Chickens - AWT
Ethiopia - White Pebbles - AWT
Ghana - Why Do Monkeys Live in Trees? - SS
Ghana - Rain Song - AWT
Ghana - Tue Tue (Clapping Game) - WS
Kenya - The Rabbit's Friend - AWT
Kenya - Kanyoni Kanja (Little Bird Outside) - WS
Madagascar - The Pheasant and the Hen - AWT
Morocco - The Lion's Dinner - AWT
Morocco - Clever Aisha - SAW
Nigeria - The Tortoise and the Iroko Man - SS
Nigeria - By Royal Command - AWT
Nigeria (Yoruba) - How Ijapa the Tortoise Tricked the Hippopotamus - GMN
Nigeria - Akwa Nwa Nere Nnwa (The Little Nanny Story) - WS
Somalia - Dinner for All - AWT
South Africa (Masai) - The Mighty Caterpillar - SS
South Africa - The Cheetah's Cubs - AWT
South Africa (Xhosa) - The Runaway Children - GMN
Sudan - Secrets are Hard to Keep - AWT
Swaziland - Princess Tombi-ende and the Frog - GMN
Tanzania - The Dancing Hyena - AWT
Tunisia - The King's Best Friend - AWT
Zaire - The Boy Who Tried to Fool His Father - NT
Zaire - Bebe Moke (Baby So Small) - WS
Zimbabwe - Beautiful Bird - MV
Zimbabwe - The Sunbirds - AWT
Zimbabwe - The Hero Makoma - Lang


ASIA
Afghanistan - When Dreams Come True - AWT
Bangladesh - Toontoony Bird - SS
Cambodia - A Bag Full of Stories - SAW
China - Little Friends, Hand in Hand - MV
China - The Dragon Princess - AWT
China - The Fox and the Crab - NT
China (Hmong) - How a Warty Toad Became an Emperor - GMN
China - Hok Lee and the Dwarfs - Lang
China - Fong Swei (After School) - WS
India - Bathtime - MV
India - The Four Magicians - AWT
India - The Snake Charmer - SAW
India - The Cat and the Parrot - NT
India - The Snake Prince - Lang
India - Anilae Anilae (Chipmunk, Chipmunk) - WS
India - Kai Veechamma (Move Your Hand) - WS
Indonesia - My Village - MV
Indonesia - Clever Friends - AWT
Iran - Let's Play - MV
Iran - The Singing Pumpkin - SS
Iran - Precious Pearls - AWT
Iran - Attal Mattal (Rhythm Game) - WS
Iran (Persia) - Leyla and the Lamp - SAW
Israel - Finders Keepers - AWT
Israel - Zum Gali Gali (Work Song) - WS
Japan - Song of Kites - MV
Japan - Magical Mice - SS
Japan - The Crocodile Bridge - AWT
Japan - The Little Sparrow - SAW
Japan - Oniroku - GMN
Japan - The Crab and the Monkey - Lang
Japan - Ame, Ame (Rain Song) - WS
Korea (South) - Big Brother, Little Brother - AWT
Korea - Arirang (Arirang Hill) - WS
Malaysia - The Secret in the Package - AWT
Malaysia - Pok Amai, Amai (Clap Together) - WS
Mongolia - Evergreen - AWT
Myanmar (formerly Burma) - The Teeny Tiny Chick and the Sneaky Old Cat - SS
Myanmar (formerly Burma) - Master Thumb - GMN
Philippines - Don't Wake King Alimango - SS
Philippines - A Birthday Surprise - AWT
Philippines - Odon the Giant - NT
Saudi Arabia - Three Birds - AWT
Sri Lanka - It's Not My Fault - AWT
Sri Lanka - The Cake Tree - GMN
Thailand - The Parrot's Problem - AWT
Vietnam - Food for the Emperor - AWT


AUSTRALIA/OCEANIA
Australia - Grandfather - MV
Australia (Aborigine) - The Koala and the Kangeroo - SS
Australia (Aborigine) - Boomerang - AWT
Australia - Strong Magic - SAW
Australia - Kookaburra - WS
Borneo - Too Many Fish - SS
Fiji - Tapioca - MV
Fiji - Beware of the Shark! - AWT
New Zealand - Big Whale - MV
New Zealand - The Kiwi's Gift - AWT
New Zealand - The Magic Fish Hook - SAW
New Zealand - Epo I Tai Tai E (I Will Be Happy) - WS
Papua New Guinea - The Turtle's Shell - AWT
Samoa - Savalivali - MV
Tonga - Spotty Spider - MV

Once I get my passport stamp-stickers figured out, I'll post them here, too.

Memorize first, context second; or memorize with context

Especially since younger kids can easily and fairly happily memorize things without being capable of understanding the context. I'm thinking of Latin and math, particularly, but it applies to other subjects, too. And for the purposes of this post, I'm assuming that *both* memorization and conceptual understanding are necessary and desirable for complete mastery of a subject - the question at hand is whether memorization can/should come *before* conceptual understanding, or whether memorization and conceptual understanding ought/must go hand-in-hand.

So, my understanding of classical ed (both neo-classical and traditional classical) is that it is largely in favor of getting necessary memory work started in the younger years, and it's ok that they don't understand it right away - get the foundation laid now, and teach them how to use those facts when they are capable of it in later years/stages. Of course, if they *are* capable of it in younger/grammar years, then go ahead and provide the context - but I'm talking about where a given child, at least, just isn't capable of understanding the context/concepts yet, but *is* capable of memorizing the facts that will be necessary in order to use those concepts. Thus the emphasis on math facts and Latin paradigms without worrying overmuch if they can't understand the necessary math or grammar concepts yet - basically, that memorizing without context won't hurt them so long as you *do* bring in the context eventually. And in fact, delaying the memorization *until* they can understand the underlying concepts is actually counterproductive and slows down the overall mastery of the subject.

But evidence shows that, in many cases, students just never moved beyond memorization without understanding in math and Latin. Lots of ink has been spilled trying to sort out the problem (part of which is undoubtedly because many of those students were never *taught* anything beyond memorization in the first place ) - and one common answer is that students should *never* memorize without being able to understand the concepts - that once they get in the habit of thinking that all there is to a given subject/skill is rote memorization and all problems are/can be solved by straight regurgitation of memorized facts, it is very hard, and in some cases impossible, to now teach them to *think*, to break the habit of mindlessly regurgitating facts and instead *use* all those memorized facts to learn and apply the underlying concepts. Therefore, you should be training the proper habits of the mind from the start, teaching students to *think* from the start, and thus never have them memorize anything outside of the context in which it will be used.

And now, I'm sure, you see shades of the conceptual math debates, and the Latin debates over teaching the language as a logic puzzle versus as a language . I've been pretty strongly on the conceptual math side, as well as the Latin-as-a-language side, as a result of my own learning experiences and the end goals espoused by those positions (too many classical types don't seem to realize there is more to math than memorization and the standard school applications, and don't consider reading Latin as Latin to be worthwhile).

But as I'm starting to teach my dd4, I'm running headlong into reality , which is that she just doesn't get some math concepts, won't even let me show her them (they are apparently things that should not be ). And I'm waffling about whether I should stop any formal math until she is more ready, or keep on with the bits she likes, which undoubtedly are going to get into memorizing without understanding, or go whole hog on memorizing, and do lots of chants and such (which she'd like, I'm sure).

Also, I've been reading up on Latin teaching - Bennett's "Teaching Latin and Greek in the Secondary School", which is rec'd by Cheryl Lowe, and Distler's "Teach the Latin, I Pray You", which is rec'd by teach-Latin-as-a-language advocates - it's been interesting seeing the similarities and differences b/w the two approaches. I'm mostly in favor of Distler's approach, which is a rigorous, in-favor-of-memorization-and-drill approach (but always and only in context!) to teaching how to read Latin as Latin. But unless one's kids are language/grammar types, you would hit a wall really quickly if you started in the grammar years - a lot of the grammar topics are the sort that seem to require logic-stage thinking (and the book was about teaching high schoolers). So what is better? To stick with context, and thus memorize mostly vocab and a few forms, but you can use them all? Or to just not worry about context, memorize all the forms along with vocab, even though you can't use them yet, relying on memorized prayers/songs/etc to provide enough context to be getting on with until they are ready for real grammar/syntax study?

Classical advocates say the former makes the grammar/syntax study more difficult than it needs to be, since you have the memory burden on top of learning how to use all those forms. Reading-Latin-as-Latin advocates say getting in the habit of using the forms out of context makes learning to apply them *in* context much harder than if you'd done it right from the start. (And there's the related issue of whether an early emphasis on translation and otherwise constantly turning the Latin into English at every turn - seemingly inevitable with a memorize-first approach - sabotages later efforts to comprehend Latin without *having* to go through English.) Conceptual math debates tend to go along the same lines - does memorizing without understanding the concepts first inhibit learning the concepts later? And if so, how do you deal with kids who just can't seem to get the concepts at all - is it really best to just drop math entirely until they *are* able to understand?

And, just to make things more interesting, classical advocates are all about the necessity of memorizing in context when it comes to teaching reading. Memorizing sight words outside of the context of being able to divide the word into phonemes/syllables and sound it out - phonics - is considered a bad, bad thing. It is better to wait until the child is ready to comprehend phonics than to go ahead and memorize whole words now, figuring you'll go over phonics later, when the child is ready. Why? Because teaching sight words sets up bad habits, habits that take longer to break than just doing phonics from the start. For some kids, *years* longer, it seems. So classical educators *do* acknowledge the issue of out-of-context learning causing bad habits. (And cognitive science has established that we use different parts of our brains when we read via memorized words versus phonically.)

But on the other side of the coin, the idea that the best way to teach expert thinking in a subject is to teach those thought processes from the very first - no setting up bad habits of thinking wrongly or not at all - is likewise rejected by cognitive science. Expert thinking requires a *lot* of domain knowledge, and trying to reason like an expert *without* that domain knowledge is futile at best, and establishes its own bad habits at worst. Their findings support the classical idea that it is best to learn facts, lots and lots of facts, before trying to think about them. And certainly reality tells me that my kids are ready to memorize a *lot* earlier than they are ready to logically think through things.

But a lot of things can be memorized *with* enough context to be getting by - like history and science stories/sentences and poems and songs - even if the kids don't understand them now, what they've memorized still contains quite a bit of context, that is available to them with no further effort than growing up. But math facts and Latin paradigms aren't quite the same - on their own, they give little-to-no hint of how they will eventually be used (bare lists of history facts or science facts have the same problem). Which isn't a problem if they can be memorized without causing damaging bad habits - but is a *big* problem if the memory-work-without-context *does* build bad habits.

Wrt what sorts of memory work is more prone to causing bad habits of thought, the phonics/whole word thing seems to hinge around memorizing core facts - phonograms, say - versus memorizing facts that are actually composed of other facts - whole words. That the problem comes in when you memorize stuff that you really ought to have been logically figuring out. Like in math, maybe it's fine to rote memorize the basic number bonds up to 10 (the facts up to 18 and beyond can be logically determined from there, and are good practice in using math laws and learning mathy thinking), and skip counting through the multiples of 10/12/15/whatever (to get useful patterns into one's head without getting into the potential minefield of whether memorizing the mult/div facts without understanding mult/div causes problems). In Latin, I don't think rote memorizing the paradigms and being able to give specific forms - so long as you didn't get into the trap of using English all the time, and thus develop habits of turning Latin into English - would *hurt*, but I wonder if it is really the best use of time. By avoiding bad/false contexts, you are left with *no* context, hardly - other than looking at Latin sentences/passages and parsing by giving all possible options for the given endings, since you do *not* have the context required to actually figure out which one it probably is. The only point would be to rote memorize the endings, really - is it worth that?

And it seems that *some* level of context is required, because *way* too many people *do* end up thinking of math, or Latin, or history, or science - any school subject, really - as nothing more than a bunch of random crap to be memorized and regurgitated. They *never* get beyond that.

But *how much* context is the question . And how *specific*. Are lots of living books on the subject, read contemporaneously to the memorization, whether or not they apply to the specific things being memorized, sufficient? Or do they need to be specifically related to the things being memorized? Or is rote memorization - memorizing things without context - inherently going to cause bad thinking habits, for which no amount of secondary context - living books, real life applications, anything that is not *explicitly* how it will be used - can prevent?

I mean, whole language types are all about context - but the context they provide is secondary, the context of "why you want to read in the first place" - similar to the use of living books to flesh out memorizing - and in teaching how to read, it seems that, for many kids, that context just isn't good enough. They need the primary context that words are made out of phonemes, and are combined in these ways, and are sounded out like this. Do other subjects have that same issue? Or maybe just skill-based ones?

Classical math vs. modern axiomatic math

I've always been a "yea proofs" kind of person, and I was right on board with the WTM/LCC recommendation of proof-based geometry. And then I ran across this homeschooling couple that does proofs in algebra, too. They (the male half, at least) strongly advocate teaching "pure math" - i.e. starting with axioms and definitions and then using them to prove theorems. And they are doing so with their children. How awesome is that?

I was completely inspired - this is what (neo) classical math is supposed to be. I searched online used bookstores and bought all their rec'd, oop textbooks. I started (slowly) learning to do proofs myself. I was invigorated by all the possibilities.

But what about the elementary years? Were we condemned to just mark time doing fake math 'till we're ready for the real stuff in algebra?

And then I found CLAA, and their Classical Arithmetic program. No marking time here! It deductively builds up, from the very beginning, the whole of arithmetic. From the beginning, the focus is on proofs. For 9 year olds! I was in love - *real* math, from the beginning. Now that I know it was possible, I started thinking of exactly how to do it.

But should I do classical axiomatic math or modern axiomatic math? For one, I'm not wanting to enroll my dc in CLAA, so it would be *me* taking the courses, and then synthesizing the info into something I could teach my kids. And I know nothing about how the ancients did math. But I suspect it is quite different than modern axiomatic math - and that those differences have important philosophical ramifications.

One of the more obvious differences is that ancient math seems to rely on words and thus on traditional logic, while modern axiomatic math uses symbolic logic. I've read Martin Cothran's essay, "Logic is not Math," as well as the section in Kreeft's "Socratic Logic" that contrasts traditional and symbolic logic (and certainly they are not the same thing), which has given me an idea of some of the philosophical issues that led to the development of symbolic logic, but I've no idea how that plays out in the use of symbolic logic in math. I feel that it has a deeper significance than just that one uses symbols and the other words, but as to what that significance actually *is*... only vague impressions.

A less obvious, but possibly more fundamental, difference is how they treat axioms. (Certainly there seems to be a big difference in axiom choice b/w ancient arithmetic and the modern properties of the real number field.) From the CLAA article, the ancients picked their axioms based on what was self-evidently true. I'm guessing they just have one master set of axioms for each major branch of the Quadrivium (or just one set of axioms, period). However, moderns have different sets of axioms associated with all different kinds of sets, and they select their axioms based not on self-evident truths, but on trying to generate the smallest set of axioms possible (they hate the whole idea of having to *assume* anything - clear philosophical implications here! - and so want to have the fewest assumptions possible). This can result in axioms which are very much *not* self-evidently true, as well as multiple valid set of axioms to describe the same structure or branch of mathematics.

As well, moderns are interested in what happens when certain axioms don't apply, with little to no concern if it the results seem to correspond with an external reality or not, so long as they are internally consistent (e.g. non-Euclidean geometry came about from imagining what would happen if parallel lines *did* intersect, even though it seemed self-evident that they don't). I'm not sure that this concept would make sense to the ancients - would they care about the results that came from assuming that a self-evident truth was, in fact, not true? (Interestingly enough, though, several branches of mathematics that seemed to have no real world connection when they were first discovered were later found to be exactly what was needed to mathematically describe a new physics theory.)

What do the above differences in approach to axiomatic math reveal about the underlying philosophical differences between the ancients and modern mathematicians?

I don't know, yet. But I'm trying to sort it all out.

(Of course, its not like moderns even have a consensus on the underlying philosophy of math in the first place. Are we discovering things that have always existed, or is math just a human construction? Why is math so strangely effective at describing the real world? For all I know, the ancients were just as divided.)

Planned Parenthood Guilty of Their Own Accusations

On the Planned Parenthood website you will find a link on getting the facts on abortion. Just clicking around to see if they actually tell women what abortion is (you know to see if they are truthful in their presentation), I found them talking about "crisis pregnancy centers" - with full on scare quotes. Rather than tell you about it, read it straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Deciding what to do about an unplanned pregnancy can be very difficult. It may be made even more difficult by so-called "crisis pregnancy centers." These are fake clinics run by people who are anti-abortion. They have a history of giving women wrong, biased information to scare them into not having abortions.

These centers

* may not give you complete and correct information about all your options — abortion, adoption, and parenting
* may try to frighten you with misleading films and pictures to keep you from choosing abortion
* may lie to you about the medical and emotional effects of abortion
* may tell you that you are not pregnant even if you are. This may fool you into continuing your pregnancy without knowing it. If your decision is delayed, it could make abortion more risky. It could also keep you from getting early prenatal care.
* may discourage you from using certain methods of birth control that are very safe and effective

Crisis pregnancy centers often pretend to be real health care providers — but many are not. These fake clinics often trick women with false advertising. They may make women think they will be offered unbiased information and a full range of health services.

Crisis pregnancy centers also sometimes try to trick women by using names that are similar to the names of real reproductive health centers in the neighborhood. Many times, the crisis pregnancy centers are located very close to real reproductive health centers. This makes it easy for women to go to the crisis pregnancy center by mistake.
How do you avoid a crisis pregnancy center?

* Don't schedule an appointment unless you are sure it's a legitimate place.
* Ask friends, other health care providers, counselors, or other people you trust for the name of a real health center.
* If you are considering abortion, you can find a list of abortion providers on the National Abortion Federation website.

No health care provider should pressure you into a decision about your pregnancy. All real family planning clinics will give you information about all your options.

Staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center can help. They can give you information on all of your options — abortion, adoption, and parenting. And they can talk through your options with you so that you can make the decision that is best for you.

I love the bit about crisis pregnancy centers tricking women into believing they aren't pregnant. Are people really stupid enough to believe that line? Ok, maybe they are, I mean they believe that the government can fix the health care system. That aside, talk about the kettle calling the pot black. PPh accuses crisis pregnancy centers of providing biased if not false information to convince you to follow their recommendations while doing the very same to convince you to use planned parenthood's services.

Thoughts on the brain-training benefits of classical education

I was browsing the CLAA site today, and was looking at links to an axiom-based arithmetic text (deductive study - CLAA thumbs up) and to an early inductive arithmetic text (CLAA thumbs down). (Deductive study is first learning general principles and then applying them to specific examples; inductive study is first looking at specific examples and then extracting the general principle from them.)

While reading the intro to the inductive text, I was struck by how similar its aims were to most modern math texts. The author emphasized starting with concrete examples, rather than jumping straight into abstract, number-only work. He started with children's innate understanding of the four operations and built from there. He even advocated using manipulatives! He made a point of stating that his book taught math in a way that was aligned to how children naturally thought about math, and thus they could learn easily, even at young ages.

This is the same goal that most modern educators have - to take what we know about how people learn in order to find the best - easiest, most efficient - way to teach the subject. While people may disagree about which way is best, no one disagrees with the goal. Certainly homeschoolers, especially, have embraced the ideal of finding the particular approach to each subject that best fits their student(s) and how they learn. As for myself, I've spent a fair bit of time studying the latest research in cognitive science and second language acquisition, in order to find the best way to teach my kids.

But, as I was thinking about the differences between the two arithmetic books, it hit me just what it means to "train the brain." It's not just teaching via a particular (deductive) approach, but teaching via an approach that *intentionally* does not align with how people naturally learn. After all, if children naturally thought that way, then they wouldn't have to be specifically taught to do it.

So the fact that traditional classical approaches to some subjects (Latin and Greek, math) don't line up with modern research on the way our brains work is not a bug, but a feature. (Not, of course, that you can't use how people learn to help you design the best, most efficient way to teach things via a classical approach, but that will, almost by definition, be harder than (some) non-classical approaches.)

I had never thought about it that way before, even though it seems blindingly obvious, now.

Apparently Lutheran Theology *Does* Conflict with the Underlying Philosophy of Classical Education

I was discussing with my dh - a Lutheran pastor - the accuracy (or lack thereof) of The Latin-Centered Curriculum's (LCC) description of Luther's beliefs toward classical education, and ended up getting completely blown away.

Dh advanced the position that, however hard we may try to find the truth, we can only succeed in actually finding it with the help of the Holy Spirit. Basically, sin has so thoroughly tainted everything - including the natural world and our reason - that on our own we are thoroughly incapable of ever grasping actual Truth. Sin corrupted all our data, and there is no way that we - equally corrupted by the Fall - can even have the slightest clue what it originally was like. We may very well find out accurate facts about our sinful world, but they are - at best - twisted, distorted reflections of actual Truth. And truth mixed with lies is ultimately still a lie. Only through the Holy Spirit can we discover actual Truth. (It's just like how we can not help but sin except through the continual help of the Holy Spirit.)

(Natural law would be something of a special case. It is directly written on our hearts by God, and - like all works of God - it is perfect. But it was done after the Fall, and in response to it - the law wasn't needed when we were in perfect communion with God, after all - and thus doesn't suffer from the data corruption effects that the rest of God's perfect creation suffers from. However, even though the law is perfect, our reason - outside of God - is still flawed, and thus can't help but mix lies in with the truth.)

Well, that is depressing. And flatly contradicts at least some of the basic premises of classical education. Objective truth exists, but it is not knowable outside of God. Not only it is impossible to know Christ without God, it is impossible to truly know anything without God. Sure, reason alone could never save your soul, but apparently it alone can't do much of anything, period.

Yet, does this understanding of human reason and its limitations violate basic premises of Christian classical education? More to the point, does it do so in a way that makes it impossible to have a historically meaningful classical education that is also grounded in Lutheran theology?

Well, based upon this explanation of true Christian education, written by William Michael of the CLAA, I would say that authentic classical education that is authentically Lutheran is possible. He writes that "[t]rue education teaches human beings to seek truth, goodness and beauty by the use of faith-enlightened reason." Despite our disagreement on the efficacy of non faith-enlightened reason, I am in complete agreement with that statement.

But even so, the more I read about the Scholastics, and about how thoroughly they - and through them the Catholic church - were influenced by Aristotle's philosophy, the more I'm starting to agree with Mr. Michael. If a true classical education requires adopting an Aristotelian worldview (which is not an indefensible position to take), rather than just studying Aristotle's works, then it really *isn't* possible to have an authentic classical education that is also genuinely Protestant.

But is adopting an Aristotelian worldview required to have an historical meaningful classical education? That's the kicker - I'm still trying to figure it out.

Genuine Lutheran Classical Education - Oxymoron?

So says the founder, Mr. Michael, of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy (provider of authentic Catholic classical education, in an historically meaningful sense).

My first reaction was to reject his conclusion out of hand - He's Catholic, what else would he think? Certainly, Catholics and Lutherans disagree on several fundamental issues, and this naturally would be reflected in how we approach learning - a Lutheran education is an entirely different animal than a Catholic education. But the idea that Catholic beliefs are necessary to an historically meaningful classical education - that's crazy talk, right? Yet, as I considered his arguments, I got to wondering - does authentic classical education, in the historically meaningful sense (which is what I am striving for), incorporate principles and philosophies that are antithetical to Lutheran theology?

Michael, in describing the trouble non-Catholic students would have in his program, says that "it is a matter of fact that the principles of Protestantism and Evangelicalism are inconsistent with the principles of true classical learning. In other words, there can be no such thing as a 'Genuine Protestant Classical Education'."

However, many of Michael's points, while accurate with respect to generic American Protestantism, do not apply to Lutheranism. All of the cultural advantages he lists for Catholic families - the liturgical calender, the numerous saints to study and imitate, the Sacraments, the fellowship in two millennia's worth of Christian society, and the historical examples of other classically educated Christians - are all available to Lutherans as well (though there are differences - number of sacraments, how we consider the saints, etc. - which, while I consider them unimportant to his main point, I doubt he would agree with me).

Also, we do have vastly different definitions of vocation - which Michael sees as the most important difference between Catholics and Protestants with regard to the suitability of a classical liberal arts education. However, I just don't see the problem. Why does a lack of "religious vocations," in the Catholic sense, make a classical education less desirable? (I think I'm missing his point, here.)

As well, we do not hold to the "Protestant principles of knowledge" that he lists - Sola Scriptura, private interpretation, and disregard for tradition, all of which he claims will have to be abandoned to study philosophy properly - in the way that most American Protestants do. On the one hand, we don't place the Lutheran Confessions on the same level as Scripture. Scripture is infallible; the Confessions aren't. We believe them to be a correct explanation of the Scriptures, but if they were proven to be incompatible with Scripture, we would abandon the Confessions on that point and go with Scripture. However, we do believe them to be correct. And we reject the idea of the individual as the highest authority on interpretation - all Scripture interpretation should be in the context of the church (i.e. the Confessions). Teachings that violate the Lutheran Confessions are generally considered to be false, by virtue of having violated the Confessions. Yet we still explicitly deny that the Lutheran Confessions are infallible. It's a paradox - and in good Lutheran fashion we embrace it, upholding both poles, contradictory as they are, as equally true.

Yet for all our differences from American Protestantism, we still have fundamental issues with Catholic theology. Are these issues equally fundamental to classical education? (And how are these issues connected to classical education in the first place?) I'm not sure. But I'm intrigued. So I've been reading more on the CLAA site, as well as researching early Lutheran education (which was classical - and very similar to Jesuit education, in fact) and the philosophical underpinnings of traditional classical education. It's interesting. So far I'm still inclined to argue that genuine Lutheran classical education, at least, can exist, but we'll see.

K3 Diary - Informal Math

(I've been wanting to keep a log of sorts, recording what we've done, hs-wise - blog seems as good a place as any.)

Today R (3yo) was flipping through one of my books (Distler's "Teach the Latin, I Pray You"), and reading all the numbers she came to. When she said 11 wrong (said "one two two"; I've been teaching her to count the RightStart way - one-ten-one, one-ten-two, etc. - and sometimes she says "two" instead of "ten"; no idea why the second two, though, but she's been doing that consistently the past week or so.), I corrected her, and then said the page numbers (which happened to include 12) for her, first the RS way - one-ten-two - and then the regular way - twelve. That was so much fun that she flipped the page, so I could say the next ones as well. We did that through the mid-twenties. Then she gave me a number - 64, and we looked it up, plus a few more. Then she was done. Just five minutes or so, but every little bit counts.

What to do?

Yours truly has been extended a call. Now the question is, "what is the will of God for us?" It has always seem to me this is one of the toughest questions to ask. It is not like I can go to scripture and read, "Dr. Luther, you shalt taketh the call that cometh during the sixth month of the 232nd year of the land beyond the sea." So now I have to rely on those tainted sources of reason and feelings. Is that God telling me to take the call or is it heartburn. So, in my moment of indecision please pray for us as we consider this wonderful new opportunity to serve the Lord.

Look Mom! No instruments!

It is amazing some of the things you can discover by simply hitting a single button. The following group called the Voca People demonstrate the vast potential of the human voice. Check out the video. You won't believe what they do with absolutely no instruments.

Comprehensible input resources for Latin

I also posted my previous post, asking why classical educators ignore findings from modern language acquisition research - especially that language acquisition requires a LOT of exposure to comprehensible input in the target language (well accepted when it comes to modern languages) - when it comes to the classical languages, on the WTM boards. One theme that quickly emerged was that the parent is not fluent, does not have access to someone who is fluent, and that there is a general lack of easy Latin input available, so while an immersion environment might be ideal, it is impossible for them to provide. Some Latin is better than no Latin, so they do what they can.

Perfectly rational and understandable. However, thanks to the Internet, there are tons of resources for Latin available - many of which are free! More than enough to provide sufficient comprehensible input so that those of us who aren't fluent in Latin ourselves can still approximate an immersion Latin environment - for ourselves and our kids.

Here are just a few:

Use other beginning texts for additional readings: I picked up complete sets of CLC and ER texts for under $20 each on Amazon. As well, Latin Book One, including audio, is online, CLC has their stories online, and here are the stories from ER I and II online.

Google books has tons of readers and beginning books available, as does the Internet Archive. Here is a list of links to easy Latin readers.

John Piazza has many comprehensible input resources on his site, including a history reader and mythology reader compiled from readings from OOP beginning Latin books, as well as an introduction to everyday Latin.

Evan Millner's Latinum podcast has thousands of hours of Latin audio, including recordings of the entirety of Adler's"A Practical Grammar of the Latin Language," provided explicitly to give all Latin learners access to an immersion environment.

Laura Gibbs has provided thousands of Latin proverbs, verses and fables online.

Many Latin teachers have gotten together to write Latin readers, and have posted them online at Tar Heel Readers.

Diederich's research into the frequency of Latin endings and vocabulary showed that a mere 18 endings comprise the majority encountered in literature. Learn those first, and their basic grammatical meanings through a grammar overview, such as Harris' "The Intelligent Person's Guide to the Latin Language," and a vast amount of Latin will be open to you - you don't have to wait till you have gone completely through the grammar to start reading. As well, his vocab frequency lists show what words to focus on to get the most bang for the buck. (Edited to add: A better link to Diederich's research.)

And these are only the resources that came to mind right off the bat!

Latin Pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition Theory

Or, why do we, as classical educators, care so little about what modern foreign language research has to say?

The classical languages are generally taught very differently than modern foreign languages. Most people in classical education see this as a distinct plus: in addition to learning Latin, we also reap a variety of ancillary benefits inherent to deductive language study. Win-win, right?

But in the midst of all this brain-training grammar-translation study, do we actually learn Latin?

Reading about Latin education in the 19th century - the halcyon days of proper grammar-translation according to Cheryl Lowe of Memoria Press - one finds many noted classicists discussing how, after years of study, most students still couldn't just open a book and read a Latin sentence in Latin word order. They had to laboriously translate, word by word, to have any clue as to the meaning; even then, with each individual word correctly parsed and translated, they still often got it completely wrong. There was quite a lot of discussion about how to change Latin (and Greek) instruction to get better results, so that the majority of students attained some degree of actual reading ability in exchange for all their hard work.

I lurk on a list where the focus is applying modern language acquisition research and techniques to teaching Latin. List members cite firsthand experience with the low level of Latin skill achieved by the majority of their students under traditional g/t methods. In fact, they don't believe that learning Latin via a pure g/t approach trains the brain so much as it requires a brain with high cognitive ability in the first place. In other words, they say, learning Latin deductively doesn't make you smart - you had to *be* smart to successfully learn Latin via a grammar-translation approach in the first place. In their experience, only 5-10% of students - usually those gifted in math - can actually succeed in learning Latin by so-called traditional methods (they argue that teaching Latin almost entirely in the vernacular is actually an aberration compared to how it was taught for most of its history).

While I'm not sure if I fully agree with their assertion that grammar-translation study doesn't confer any brain-training benefits (though they seem to have cognitive science on their side with regard to it conferring - or more accurately NOT conferring - transferable skills; I'm not sure precisely where I stand on all that. Clearly, yes, critical thinking in a field requires significant domain knowledge; however, most people agree that "how to learn" skills, like note-taking, once learned, are applicable across many fields of knowledge. Which side of the line do the Latin claims fall? I'm not yet sure.), I've never seen anyone talk about a successful g/t program (one that conferred actual reading ability) that didn't involve a lot of Latin exposure and working in Latin (as opposed to the vernacular).

This observation dovetails nicely with modern language acquisition research (much of which is based on Krashen's five hypotheses). Some concepts pertinent to teaching Latin:

*The Input Hypothesis - A language is acquired through sufficient input that is one step beyond a learner's current level (input at i+1 for a learner at i); often referred to as comprehensible input, it should be self-selected and ideally be on a topic the learner finds intrinsically interesting. Thus they develop proficiency in the L2 almost incidentally while they are consciously learning about topics of interest. Krashen believes that generating output in the L2 has no effect on acquiring the language - input is all that matters - but other researchers disagree, variously considering output anywhere from helpful to necessary to acquire a language.

*The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis - There is a difference between acquiring a language and learning about the language, with formal grammar study belonging to the latter and having no effect on the former ("language appreciation"), unless the grammar instruction is in the target language and the student is genuinely interested in learning the grammar. Then the grammar instruction functions as comprehensible input. (Traditional Jesuit Latin instruction would fall under this category; they utilized the direct method - striving to avoid, as far as possible, the use of the vernacular as the means by which Latin is learned - thus giving students large amounts of exposure to Latin.)

In reading threads (on the Well-Trained Mind boards) about learning modern languages, I find a lot of support for Krashen's ideas. There is a lot of emphasis about getting sufficient exposure to the L2 - at least an hour a day, if you want to achieve fluency. People talk approvingly about European schools that teach multiple languages by teaching other subjects (math, history, etc.) in the various target languages. Yet, when it comes to the classical languages, we're content to see maybe 15 lines of Latin a lesson?

We seem to forget that the classical languages are, in the end, still languages. Whether acquiring Latin confers greater benefits than acquiring another language, you still have to manage to acquire it. Research that is valid and applicable to learning modern languages is equally applicable to learning classical languages.

It Lives!

Yeah, it's been awhile.

Quite a lot has happened. First and foremost, we are now the proud parents of two beautiful girls; our younger daughter was born last October, at home. As well, we are the proud aunt and uncle of another niece, who was born in April. Dh's parents now have four grandchildren, all girls. We celebrated our oldest dd's third birthday last week - hard to believe how fast she is growing up. We are hopefully looking at a move soon - will find out this week if dh will receive a call from a congregation in IL.

Hopefully this will be the first of many new posts - I certainly have lots of ideas floating around in my head - it's just a matter of getting them out.

Afternoon show leaves a lot to be desired

I finally got to hear some clips of the new Afternoon Show on KFUO courtesy of Save the LCMS and this is all I have to say. It sounds like something KSBJ vomited up, if you aren't familiar with the giant Christian radio station in Houston, it is a lame vacuous example of wasting air time and space full of crap pop theology and annoyingly perky djs. With the current inexplicable fear of being different that seems to rule the LCMS a great show that discussed theology from a clearly Lutheran perspective has been replaced with inane banter. Yeah, that's going to reel them in and win them souls. Come on Board of Communications bring back Issues, ETC. and fire the director of KFUO.

Further Proof That The Teachers of Tolerance Are Okay With Intolerance

The ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) may have finally found their headline case proving governmental discrimination against Christianity. Foxnews reports that they are now suing a school over a policy that bans the depiction of religious imagery in art class. Unless, they are saddled with the stupidest judge (thank God they are not under the purview of the 9th Circuit Court) in history the lawyers for ADF will have a cake walk.

The case in question a student received a zero because he drew a picture for class featuring a cross and the ubiquitous Jn 3:16 reference. The teacher in defense showed him a copy of the official class policy which he then tore up. Now it is not known if the kid knew the policy before hand, however, if he did I applaud him for making a stand. Why? Well it appears the school has a teacher actively teaching Hindu principles, there is a classroom featuring religious idols, the school has numerous demonic representation on display, features a statue of the Hindu goddess Shiva, and a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man."

So, either the teacher is making a concerted effort independent of the school to suppress creativity in her class, or the school is willfully suppressing Christian religious expression, albeit unsuccessfully, while allowing pagan religious expression. I do think the school is going to lose the lawsuit (likely settled out of court) but it is unclear if this will result in a total ban (likely in today's climate of "tolerance") or allowing unfettered expression.

R.I.P. Issues,etc.

Most of you have already heard about the untimely demise of KFUO show Issues, etc. I must lament that I am going to miss listening to the podcasts of the show. Sadly, people do not realize the full extent of internet communication for radio stations. After hearing Pres. Jerry's response, I think it is time that we have officials who actually understand the modern world. Jerry, your a nice guy, but you need to realize the impact that technology is having beyond powerpoint sermons. I was one of the many who utilized iTunes' free distribution of the Issues, etc. program. Being a pastor with the normal demand on time it was nice to be able to pick which hour I listened to while working in the office, but this will no longer happen because somebody didn't do a proper job in researching the listener base. Maybe there needs to be a change in the KFUO management and not the shows? Just a thought.

I took the ten day challenge and lost

Wow! It has been a long time since I posted, but fear not I will be back and more frequent that the past few months. Anyhow in explanation of my absence, I finally caved and took the World of Warcraft challenge, you know Blizzard's challenge that you can't only play for ten days trial package. Needless, to say I lost. The constant hunt for new and better items and the thrill of leveling was too much for me. Besides, I have always been a fan of the computer role playing style games, where you get to be a warrior for good and slay evil demons. Needless, to say it was more than I could handle, but now that the initial flush is over I find myself drifting back to other favorite past-times. So expect more from me, soon! On a related note, I have a song idea for Weird Al, to the tune of Willy Nelson's "Mama don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys" is "Mama don't let your babies to grow up to be gamers."

Unschooling and Christianity

For the past few months, I was largely reading about classical education and classical homeschooling. I am really inspired by it, and I believe that a traditional classical education is of great value. However, I was still struggling with my tendency toward unschooling, and working to find a good mix between the two.

Then I spend an hour on a radical unschooling site, and I'm ready to embrace unschooling wholeheartedly. Sigh.

Obviously, unschooling resonates with me. It is the natural extension of my parenting philosophy (AP/GBD: Grace-based-discipline), and it fits in well with my political leanings (libertarian). Just like GBD, the principles behind unschooling are universal and applicable to far more than just learning. I am really drawn to it, but I am uncertain if it is philosophically compatible with Christianity (of the Lutheran variety).

Certainly the majority of unschooling advocates profess many beliefs that are incompatible with Lutheran Christianity (or Christianity in general, or a belief in absolute truth, for that matter), but that doesn't mean that unschooling itself is necessarily likewise incompatible.

I see the main philosophy underlying unschooling as the principle that I don't have the right to force anyone to do something against their will. It doesn't matter if I think it is important or necessary, or I don't want to do it, or I feel I shouldn't have to do it, or I feel that the other person should have to, or anything - there is no reason sufficient for me to impose my will on another. I can encourage, persuade, set a good example, invite them to join me, etc., but they have to be free to say no.

This goes hand-in-hand with the unschooling tenet that forcing someone to do something against their will is a bad way to win hearts and minds anyway, and is thus generally counterproductive. If the end goal is that they freely choose to do 'x', because that is the right thing, or the best thing, or the most rational thing, then you should start how you plan to end up - allowing them to freely choose to do 'x', even if at first they don't choose 'x' nearly as often as you'd like.

Forcing them to do 'x' just teaches them that a) 'x' must be no fun, because otherwise you wouldn't have to force it, and thus, b) there is no reason to do 'x' unless you are forced to. The end result is, of course, that they never learn the value of 'x', nor do they learn the habit of freely choosing to do 'x', but instead learn the habit of doing 'x' only when forced to. If doing 'x' has worth - and you, yourself, are demonstrating that by example, so they are exposed to the idea of doing 'x' and its benefits - then its inherent value should win converts without having to resort to force.

By and large, I agree with that position. God has ultimate authority over all humans, and outside of the spheres where He has specifically delegated His authority (to parents over their children, and to governments over their citizens, both of which are subject to the constraint that they not use their power to compel actions that are against God's Word), no human has the right to force another human to do anything against their will, no matter how virtuous the compelled action. As well, God's designation of some things as right and others as wrong is more than just an arbitrary list, it is a description of reality: ignore it to your peril.

However, many unschoolers argue that, in addition to respect for persons, we have no right to forcibly compel others' actions because there is no reason our view of the "best"/"right" thing to do is any better than someone else' view of the "best"/"right" thing to do. In other words, they believe there is no absolute truth and no objective standards. Obviously, if there is no objective or higher reason to do 'x' over 'y', there can be no legitimate reason to force someone to do 'x' over 'y' - only selfishness.

Of course I strongly disagree here. I believe in absolute right and wrong, and also I believe that some things have more worth than others. I also believe, unlike many (but certainly not all unschoolers), that there is a qualitative difference between the parent-child relationship and every other human relationship.

As parents, we have been given a sacred and awesome responsibility: the right to override another human being's autonomy. God instructs parents to not abuse this right - "parents, do not exasperate your children", but neither are we to abdicate it - we are to "train up a child in the way he should go". I believe that proper use of our authority means that we are obligated to use the minimal force required (infringe upon our child's autonomy as minimally as possible) in our efforts to discipline - i.e. teach - them where needed. As well, we are obligated to never use our authority in a selfish manner, but only in our child's genuine best interests. We should use much prayerful discernment to ensure we are doing the best job we are capable of doing.

(As an aside, I believe the same principles apply when it comes to government's exercise of its authority - thus my libertarian leanings - as well as to humanity's authority over Creation. Thus why, amongst other things, I need to ensure that my treatment of my dog reflects his best interests, not my convenience; I am really struggling with this right now.)

So where I philosophically differ from "mainstream" unschoolers (and how weird is to see 'unschoolers' and 'mainstream' in a sentence without the connector 'are not', lol) is that:

• I believe in absolute truth, and thus some things are right and some things are wrong.
  
• I believe in objective standards, and thus some things are objectively better than other things.
• I believe that the parent-child relationship is qualitatively different, and thus the parent does have the right to override their child's autonomy in circumstances where the child's best interest requires it.

As a result, I believe that not all activities, skills, and media are created equal, and that, in theory, a small subset may be so important that they must be done/learned/experienced by my children before they are adults, even if it requires force to accomplish. However, I would still be obligated to choose the least restrictive way of carrying it out. And in practice that could easily be straight-up unschooling; after all, I think it so valuable that it should be mandatory, and therefore I should be proficient and knowledgeable in it myself - they could easily learn it incidentally, or decide for themselves it is worth learning.

So, is the core of unschooling respect for persons, in which case I believe it is thoroughly compatible with Christianity, or does unschooling necessitate a rejection of absolute standards?

Over Coming Assumptions

One of the things that I have noticed with the whole debate over creationism and ID vs. evolution is that it is really an argument of assumptions. There is a fair bit of archaeological evidence for us to look at and to an extent some geological evidence. These things exist and there is no denying them, however, how one goes about interpreting the evidence is largely based on assumptions predicated by a persons world view. Looking at the same evidence a person who believes in the Creation story can look at some of the fossilized skeletons and say that the person was a very old and possible infirm human being whereas a person who believes that evolution is the answer would see a less evolved ancestor to human beings. The answers come pretty much from their various world views. The creationist believes that God created the world so that things began in a complex fashion and things such as age and possibly disease can be the reason fossils look the way they do. On the other hand, the evolutionist believe things have gone from the simple to the complex and that earlier things are by nature less complex and so the differences are caused by being more simple. I realize I am speaking rather generally at this point but I think this gives you an idea of what is going on.

Taking Back The Web

Firefox was my gateway into the world of open source software. I love the fact that it does not come with a bunch of bloatware and that I can install extensions I find useful and convenient such as ad-block. Today, I found some cool pictures based on the Firefox logo, below is just a sample.




HT: ComputerWorld