Carol, no "bites" yet!, and it's such a good question! NT (Classical Sources Message Board)

Carol, no "bites" yet!, and it's such a good question! NT
Author: KC	June 14, 1999 at 13:21:48
in reply to: Song/chant methodology* posted by Carol in CT on June 6, 1999 at 21:34:55*

> I must confess that I'm experiencing some ambivalence
> toward song/chants. I belong to an email loop that involves
> users of Sonlight curriculum who are interested in a
> classical approach and it seems that the instant recipe for
> making anything classical is to add a few
> chants/songs/drills, e.g., Shurley Grammar, Lyrical
> Science, Geography Songs, Veritas Press History and Bible
> cards, Saxon Math, etc. (This is not making any comment on
> the quality of these programs--they all seem to be good in
> and of themselves; well, in Saxon's case, maybe serviceable
> would be the word, considering some of the discussion in
> the ccs digest)
>
> Why is this considered classical methodology?
>
> Other classical education proponents do not dwell on this
> type of methodology: Laura Berquist in Designing Your Own
> Classical Curriculum discusses the importance of memorizing
> various groups of facts but doesn't make a point of
> searching out curricula that uses songs/chants. The
> Bluedorns of Trivium Pursuit do not emphasize it either.
>
> Granted, songs and chants are useful and fun and kids learn
> them easily but to say that doing that makes one's approach
> to education classical seems to be an oversimplication. It
> also seems to put us at risk of reducing the wonderful,
> exciting world of the liberal arts to a string of facts
> that can be put to jingles. Frankly, I shudder at the
> thought of history flashcards!
>
> Any other opinions on this?

Follow Ups

Post Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
> > I must confess that I'm experiencing some ambivalence > > toward song/chants. I belong to an email loop that involves > > users of Sonlight curriculum who are interested in a > > classical approach and it seems that the instant recipe for > > making anything classical is to add a few > > chants/songs/drills, e.g., Shurley Grammar, Lyrical > > Science, Geography Songs, Veritas Press History and Bible > > cards, Saxon Math, etc. (This is not making any comment on > > the quality of these programs--they all seem to be good in > > and of themselves; well, in Saxon's case, maybe serviceable > > would be the word, considering some of the discussion in > > the ccs digest) > > > > Why is this considered classical methodology? > > > > Other classical education proponents do not dwell on this > > type of methodology: Laura Berquist in Designing Your Own > > Classical Curriculum discusses the importance of memorizing > > various groups of facts but doesn't make a point of > > searching out curricula that uses songs/chants. The > > Bluedorns of Trivium Pursuit do not emphasize it either. > > > > Granted, songs and chants are useful and fun and kids learn > > them easily but to say that doing that makes one's approach > > to education classical seems to be an oversimplication. It > > also seems to put us at risk of reducing the wonderful, > > exciting world of the liberal arts to a string of facts > > that can be put to jingles. Frankly, I shudder at the > > thought of history flashcards! > > > > Any other opinions on this?
Optional link URL:
Link title:
Optional image URL: